Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Dec. 5th, 2017

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Do you think the commission is an important thing to have? Is it necessary?

[Catherine Cano]

Again, that's a good question.

For CPAC, it's not our role to decide on election policy. I think you'll have a chance to meet and hear from experts on democracy, and you'll have more of those people. I'm sure you will have many options in front of you.

One of the things we were talking about that we think is needed—and maybe it could help in your thinking as you're going through this process—is what we call a “3P” approach. What's important to have for this democracy to work is predictability, participation, and partnership.

What we mean by predictability is that voters have expectations. They need to know that there are going to be debates, who's going to carry them, when they're going to be, and where are they going to be. I think it would be helpful if we could have those things decided.

The participation part is about who will set the rules to decide who participates in the debate or who is invited to the debate, and what the criteria are and why. I think that if there is clarity on that aspect, it's going to be extraordinarily helpful.

The third thing we were thinking of is partnership. What's the best way to ensure or engage co-operation among all of the media organizations so that, as widely as possible, the debates are seen by all Canadians?

For us, making sure those three aspects are dealt with will be helpful to ensuring that those debates are fair and neutral.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Do you think there's any role for either CPAC, on your own, or a commission or commissioner in local debates, as opposed to national leaders' debates, in terms of advising or carrying them or any aspect of it?

[Peter Van Dusen]

Let me answer that in two ways.

The biggest challenge for us is working on trying to figure out what's needed to ensure the three Ps that Catherine talked about. How do we ensure that if we're going to have debates, we know when they are, who's attending, and who's going to carry them?

I think you'll have to figure out what the “it” is before organizations like CPAC can decide what kind of role we can play in the “it” and what role we're prepared to play.

We're a small operation, to be frank, but we like to think we punch above our weight in a lot of areas. One of those areas is on the local side. If there are local debates, we would happily entertain that idea.

As I mentioned, we were in 70 ridings in the last election campaign, profiling ridings we thought would have an important outcome on the election result. Some of that coverage of the riding profile included local debates, with candidates getting together on a Tuesday night at a hall somewhere in the riding. It may have been in some of your ridings. I don't have the list in front of me. There's a good chance we've been to some of your ridings at some point. We're open to that.

As we said in our opening remarks, we understand that campaigns are about more than leaders' debates. We understand the process. We understand that people don't vote for prime ministers in this country, but for parties, and the leader of that party becomes the prime minister if that party wins the election. There's a great deal of importance in what happens at the local level. We get that. That's why we're at the local level a lot during campaigns.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

They vote for people. Thank you very much for that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Graham.

Let's go on to Mr. Nater.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for joining us today. It's great to have you.

First of all, I want to thank you for airing debates in the last election campaign. We had the witnesses here last week from the major broadcasters who opted to air Coronation Street and reruns of the The Big Bang Theory instead, so I appreciate your airing those in the public interest.

One of the concerns they expressed was the journalistic standards of the debates and the production values. You obviously aired the debates. Were there any concerns on your end about journalistic standards or production values?

[Peter Van Dusen]

This is always a bit of a tricky question. I was principally involved in that decision-making, and my thinking was that these were all reputable organizations trying something new. They're all known for good journalism, so we took the position that it would be in the greater interest of democracy to show people what is available. Having not organized them and not passed judgment on who is able to do what, it was more important, in our case, to give Canadians an opportunity to see debates in some form.

To my mind you can't answer questions of how good the journalism is until you see the product, so we made a decision. Look, this is Maclean's and this is the Globe; let's see what they have on offer, because right now it's all that's on offer. Therefore, let's show it to Canadians and let's perform what I would call an aerial view of the importance of what's happening in the campaign and make sure that we put the democratic process above important questions about the quality of production and quality of journalism and leave that for viewers to decide after we've aired the debate.

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

Just clearing up a little on the variety of debates, do you see it as a positive in election campaigns to have different styles and different types of debates, rather than just one English and one French, and having a different variety, perhaps even on different subject matter?

[Catherine Cano]

Yes, I would think so. It could work. It depends on the length of the campaign as well. I think one of the considerations is whether that is for you, but yes, I think we were happy with the different format, and it gives different ways to go at questions and themes, for sure.

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

Switching gears a little, CPAC has a great iPad app that I'm a big fan of. It's great to use to follow along when I'm not physically in the House or physically at a TV.

If you don't have the viewership numbers today, could you provide to the committee what your online viewership was for those five debates during the last campaign, and in CPAC's airing in general, what you've seen over time in the increase of online and digital viewership over the past few years?

[Catherine Cano]

It's a very good question. I do not have the numbers for the last election. I don't know if we have them. I wasn't there at the time, but I will look into it and I will forward any information I have.

The number of people going on our website and app has grown extraordinarily in the last couple of years for sure, so there is an audience in a digital space.

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

I'm going to ask one more question and then I'll throw it to Kevin Waugh for the last minute or so.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Yes.

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

We heard some leeriness from Elections Canada about becoming too involved with the negotiations on decision-making. It seemed to echo somewhat your comments that you don't necessarily want to get into the weeds and get into decision-making that could jeopardize your impartiality. Would you suggest to the committee that our recommendations be very specific in how a debate ought to be conducted and who should participate, or would you rather see a commission or commissioner given latitude to make those decisions outside your decision-making power?

[Catherine Cano]

Again, I think your work will be a great opportunity to hear all the views and options in front of you. It's hard to know the best thing now. With a body, is it appropriate to enforce predictability on all stakeholders, as we talked about? What kind of power and enforcement would that have? Is there any other way to go at it?

I think you have a chance to hear great experts on that point, and we are looking forward to seeing the options. It's a bit difficult to know at this point, but I think those are probably the questions you should ask.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Kevin Waugh, welcome to the committee. You have two minutes.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Thank you. Two minutes is lots.

The basic cable fee includes CPAC, as you know, across this country. You are the political channel, as it's turned out, in this country. I know there are different views about the production costs and pooled resources, but I would like to see the commissioner...and I've talked to you about this, Catherine. CPAC is the political channel. You have the experience, 24-7, and I think it's important that CPAC lead this for the next debate.

We are seeing a meltdown with CTV, CBC, and Global-Corus. It's important. I've talked to you about this a number of times. This is your time to move into what Canadians want to see. You're on the basic channels. We pay a fee. Every household in this country pays a fee to CPAC. This is your time, I feel, to structure this with the commission, to come forward for 2019.

What are your thoughts on that?

[Catherine Cano]

Well, first of all, thank you very much for your vote of confidence. We're really proud of what the channel is accomplishing and its reputation over 25 years. I've been with it for not even two years, so it's the work of all my team that I'm praising.

It is a good question. We want to help as much as we can. We don't know what kinds of rules, what kind of body or entity, or what kinds of recommendations the committee will make, so it's a bit difficult for us to actually commit to something that is unknown. We're happy to be part of the process. If there are even more questions afterwards, we're looking forward to answering them. We want to be part of it, but we have to be mindful that the strength of CPAC actually comes from its impartiality. We're going to look at being able to preserve those things.

Our preference is to be helpful once we know what the rules are and what the committee actually comes up with.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

The key with CPAC is that you are impartial.

If I can, Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

No, sorry. Your time's up.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

We'll talk to you later. Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

The last intervenor is Mr. Garrison. Welcome to the committee.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair. I was here at the beginning of this debate, but I've been in and out.

I want to start by also echoing thanks to CPAC. I know that in my riding you have fans, a lot of fans, a surprising number. I think sometimes we underestimate the access that CPAC provides. Sometimes people focus on the overall viewership, but I know that when an issue in my riding is important locally, people use CPAC. Even if they don't watch regularly, they know to go there to get informed.

The other thing you do, which I think is very valuable, is that during elections, you provide the 70 riding profiles you mentioned. I was just trying to remember. I've run four times, only twice successfully, and I don't blame you for that.