Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 30th, 2017

[Troy Reeb]

Thank you. You did that right, even without a green screen behind you.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Troy Reeb]

It's an interesting question. The consortium has taken flak in the past for the fact that a lot of its discussions took place behind closed doors, in camera.

I would say to the members of this committee that you know that the kinds of conversations you can have in camera around publicly sensitive topics are different than the kinds of conversations you can have when the cameras are rolling. I think, as journalists and people who head news organizations, we are very much in favour of providing more transparency to the discussions that lead to a debate.

The problem is that the more politicized those discussions become, the more difficult it is to reach a consensus for how a debate can take place. I think if we saw what happened in the 2015 process, the politicization happened very, very early, and for whatever reason, one party in particular decided there was an advantage to be gained by continuing to play media organizations against each other. I think we saw the results of that, and Canadians weren't as well served with a debate.

I don't think it's my place—I wouldn't say it's the place of anybody else on this panel—to suggest whether there should be penalties for someone who doesn't participate in the debate. That would be the work of this committee, I'm sure. The challenge has always been to compel participation, particularly when one party or one leader feels the deck is not stacked in their favour by the format of the debate. That's why there's a lot of back and forth between party officials to try to come up with a format that works for all. Recognizing that's rarely achieved, it then starts to fall to public pressure. The public expects there to be a broadly televised debate.

Therefore, if someone doesn't want to participate, it's the public pressure that would be put on that leader as a result that has been the accountability mechanism in the past. It clearly didn't work the last time.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

So an empty podium would be punishment enough.

[Troy Reeb]

I'm sorry, it's not my determination to say whether that's the case.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

I understand.

[Jennifer McGuire]

I think where the public doesn't understand the process of the debate is with regard to how much of it is a negotiated process. There's negotiation among the broadcast consortium, because we're competitors and there are things that have to be sort of compromised on to put the debate forward.

Certainly with the parties, the negotiations go beyond what I think the public perception of it would be. I mean, my—

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

I'm sorry to interrupt. When you say that, though, if there's a commission put in place to do all that, there's not going to be that much negotiation because of the rules put in place.

Would you agree with that?

[Jennifer McGuire]

Listen, CBC/Radio-Canada is the public broadcaster. We would support working with an independent commission if that's what this committee decides to do. The caveat from us would be that it's not only staging a debate that matters; it's engaging Canadians.

Particularly in this climate of information and fractured participation in media, creating a collective experience and broad engagement of the debate is important, recognizing that whatever frame you put on it has to evolve with the political reality that has evolved over time.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Okay.

Ms. Freeman.

[Wendy Freeman]

I would agree with my colleagues.

It's a negotiation, and it changes with how the world is as well. Set rules don't always work, depending on what's going on in the political realm.

Again, I don't think it's our place to decide any penalties. I think that's something you would have to do.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Quickly, then, would I be right in saying that with a commission that is set up—whether it's a commissioner, Elections Canada, all that stuff—would you feel there's a structure in place to propose what it is that you do? Do you see this structure being fairly loose, in other words, a lot of negotiations to be maintained, but handled by this particular commission or commissioner?

Ms. McGuire.

[Jennifer McGuire]

I'll speak for CBC. I won't speak on behalf of the other networks.

We would absolutely support definition around a debate guarantee. If you look at the consortium—and I was the chair of the 2015 consortium, as much of a ride as that was—most of our conversations were about actually getting the debate to happen. If that were guaranteed, if there were some guarantee of the number of debates and participation, I still think it would be an obligation of the journalists to frame the issues and create that independence around the journalism piece of it, in terms of connecting it to what we understand, through our daily reporting, Canadians want and care about.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Can we get comments from the others as well, if that's possible?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Michel Cormier.

[Michel Cormier]

I'll chime in on the last point. I think in terms of credibility for the public, if there is a commission, it can't be seen to set all the rules and the themes and we broadcasters are just here to broadcast a debate. The public has to be convinced that we have an independent role in holding those debates and making them happen, so I think that's a very important issue. You don't want to lose the credibility of the exercise by giving the impression that this is directed by the parties.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

Now we'll go to Mr. Nater.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses as well. I appreciate your joining us today.

On Tuesday we heard from Paul Wells from Maclean's that the first debate, the Maclean's debate, was off to all the major broadcasters for a manageable and usual fee. Why did your stations decline to air that debate?

[Jennifer McGuire]

We were still involved in active conversations and still held hope that an English-language debate would happen. We saw movement on the French side where no debate was offered at the beginning of the process, and in the end we had a debate. We were convinced with the impact of the first debates in relatively small reach that it would be in everybody's interest to get there. It didn't in the end, but it was our belief that it was still possible, and that's why.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

You didn't carry the other four debates either. Why?

[Jennifer McGuire]

We were still actively in conversations to try to make a debate happen with the broadcast consortium.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Even up until October 2, when the TVA debate was aired?

[Jennifer McGuire]

Yes.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

In your opening comments, Ms. McGuire, you said that you “share the same objective as this committee—to find the most effective way of providing voters with the tools they need to make thoughtful, informed choices and to engage Canadians...in the democratic process.”

How is it engaging Canadians in the political process if the CBC is airing Coronation Street or Dragons' Den rather than one of these five debates? How is that in the public interest? I know a lot of Canadians love Coronation Street. I know people love Dragons' Den. One of the dragons even tried to become our leader. But how is it in the democratic interest when you're the national broadcaster and you refuse to air one of those five debates?

[Jennifer McGuire]

We aired the debate. That was done by the consortium.