Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Dec. 7th, 2017

[Janet Brown]

Monsieur Dusseault, that is a very good question. The entity that had sponsored the debates in the three cycles before the commission was created was the League of Women Voters, which is also a not-for-profit. The league does lobbying and represents issues, and that gets into the realm of what candidates have to say on those issues.

The commission was seen as a way to strip away any other activity, but the task that you ask about was difficult. It was not without a great deal of effort on our part to try to explain who we were and who we weren't, and to say that we were going to try very hard to gain the trust of the broadcasters, the campaigns, and the public to put debates on that would be seen as absolutely neutral and absolutely fair.

The League of Women Voters was understandably not happy to see a competitor enter the playing field, and one thing we wanted to do was to be extremely respectful of the groundbreaking role they had played. I am happy to say that the co-chair of the commission's board right now is Dorothy Ridings, who used to be head of the League of Women Voters.

It is a task that there is no manual for. If you are going to create a new entity like this, which is playing a huge, visible, and important role in a national election, you basically need to think very carefully about what the public face of that organization is going to be and how it is going to explain what it is doing.

I would argue one of the handicaps we had to overcome was our name. It sounds as though the commission is a part of the federal government. We are not, which is a good thing, but the answer is, it is difficult.

One thing I would like to say is that depending on how you go forward, please consider the CPD at the disposal of your committee and your colleagues. If there is ever any way in which we can save you some of the aspirin we've had to take over the years, we would be honoured to.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you.

The other topic I'd like to raise is the room you make for more marginal parties. During the last presidential election, there was more attention focused on independent candidates.

How did you handle requests from independent parties? This could potentially be an irritant in Canada. In Canada, there may be more diverse political parties. It would potentially be irritating that certain parties not have the right to take part in debates.

Did you have to deal with this issue in connection with recent debates? How did you respond?

[Janet Brown]

It may surprise you to know that in 2016, approximately 150 people registered with the Federal Election Commission as candidates for president of the United States.

We have criteria that are applied to anyone whose name has been registered with the FEC or who appears on any single state ballot in the U.S. Those criteria in the last few cycles have been three: constitutional eligibility to run and serve as the president of the United States; a chance to mathematically win the electoral college vote, because that's what matters here at the end of the day, as you know; and the candidate must meet 15% support in the polls approximately two weeks before the first debate.

That 15% is arrived at by taking five national polls that tend to be jointly conducted by newspapers and the large television networks. We average those polls—they need to be based on a very large sample survey—and see whether or not anyone, including the major party nominees, has met the 15%. If they have, they are included in the debate. The criteria are reapplied after each debate before the next debate, so that if someone's position changes, we can accommodate that.

Our debates take place in the last four weeks of the general election. You are right: there are a lot of other party candidates who would like very much to get air time. Increasingly in this country there are forums on different media outlets, particularly C-SPAN, that afford that opportunity and, of course, in particular, social media is a place where it is very cost-efficient to get your message out if you are a small candidate.

The short answer to your question is that the commission is chartered only to do general election debates between candidates who meet its FEC-mandated criteria. We cannot do anything that is especially targeted to accommodate candidates who do not meet that criteria.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Quickly, could you tell us the percentages that the Republican candidate and the Democratic candidate had two weeks before the last election?

[Janet Brown]

It was significantly more than 15%. If you would like the exact numbers, I would be happy to give them to you. They were both in excess of 40%.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

Ms. Sahota.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here today. Your testimony is fascinating.

What keeps coming to mind is along the lines of what was said by my colleague from the NDP. We're trying to figure out where the authority would come from. In your commission, where does your authority come from? What if one of the main presidential candidates were to back off, to back out and say “this isn't for me”? What if she decided that she wanted a women's league to hold the debates? What would you do in that kind of situation?

[Janet Brown]

Not only could that happen, it has happened. It was very interesting to read the testimony and the questions from the committee on that issue particularly, because the fact is that at the end of the day there's only one lever that matters in debates: what the public wants.

When it appears that a candidate is balking and in fact perhaps says they're not going to one or more of the debates, the public outcry here is huge and very swift. I would argue that this is actually a much bigger enforcement mechanism than saying that person will be denied funding or advertising time, or that there will some kind of a sanction. These debates are now expected by the public, which I should think would be the case in Canada, given your long history.

In particular, some of your witnesses have talked about the fact that for the average citizen who is not following politics every second, it's towards the end of the campaigns, the end of the general election time, that many people are in fact paying attention, and this is when they want to hear from these candidates. If it looks as though the candidates are saying that they have better things to do, that they don't want to do this and they'll use a competing invitation as a reason not to do it, people get angry, and that anger will manifest itself very quickly, because their basic feeling is, “What do you have to do that is more important?”

The debates in the United States are, I would argue, the last event that belongs to the public. The conventions are preplanned, and certainly most of us could never go to one just because we decided we wanted to. The ads are produced. Campaign stops are prescreened. The debates belong to the public, and they take place without filters: this is listening to the candidates directly.

The public outcry is very quick, and I think that's a very good thing. There has been talk in this country of legislation mandating debates, particularly perhaps tied to federal funding: that if you are a candidate receiving federal funding, you must debate. I think the common wisdom is that legislation like that would probably be deemed unconstitutional.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Really?

[Janet Brown]

It would be the reverse of free speech. It would be mandated speech.

The other concern that you can well imagine in this country is that if Congress got into the business of defining what a debate sponsor should look at, it would not stop with simply setting it up. It would come with a long list of what—

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Well, my next question, Ms. Brown, was going to be along those lines. You're covering fantastic material. I know that you're mentioning some of the objections to having it legislated, but do you see any value in having it legislated?

[Janet Brown]

I do not because of what I was going to say, which is that I think it would actually make the process much more rigid. I think it would be irresistible for the legislative body not to put in a lot of detail about how many debates, what schedule, what format, and how they would be run.... That, I would argue, might inhibit a debate sponsor's ability to be flexible as technology changes, as—

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

What if legislation were to legislate an independent commission or commissioner to create a framework with maybe a more flexible, loose mandate that there had to be one debate, at least one debate in each official language, and maybe some parameters, but leaving room for flexibility and for the commission to decide, through an arm's-length process, how these debates would be conducted? They would then negotiate with moderators, media, and other stakeholders as to how the debates would take place and when and where.

[Janet Brown]

I think it is something that you should definitely look at; it may well be the right way to go.

In this country, I think it would have been problematic. Perhaps the single reason that it would be the most problematic is that Congress, for the most part, is a partisan organization. It's very important that a debate sponsor be open to any candidate and any party and be strictly non-partisan. I think it would be difficult.... I know it would be difficult.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Along those lines, I have another question. You mentioned something interesting, which was that the average cost of a debate is about $2 million. You fundraise for the funds that your not-for-profit has, or companies and corporations are responsible for some of that funding you receive. Do people see that as somewhat of a conflict of interest at times? Can that be perceived as a conflict of interest?

[Janet Brown]

They can see it that way until they understand that in return for the donation that anyone is making to us, they get nothing. They get no access to the campaigns or the candidates, and they get no input on any of our decisions, so there is no conflict. In fact, it is remarkable to see what motivates the foundations and corporations that give to us. They think this is an important piece of our civic education process, and that's why they do it.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

What kinds of corporations come forward to donate to the commission? For example, is it academic institutions? You were saying that if you hold the debate at an academic institution, they're responsible for the funding. If you hold it at another venue, are various other stakeholders coming forward or do you think it's still mostly the academic community that sees the value in this commission?

[Janet Brown]

No. It's very broad. Academic institutions see the value because, needless to say, it is bringing a historic event to their campuses that hundreds if not thousands of their students can volunteer in and have an opportunity that they would never have otherwise. They certainly see it. Corporations see it.

We have a wide range of entities that have participated in contributing to our work. It is not a huge list, because the fact of the matter is that we can't do very much for them, but it is a list of companies that over the years have ranged from telecommunications companies to airlines and car companies. It's a very wide range of entities that see this as something that they believe is an important and valuable part of our democracy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you very much.

We'll now go to the Honourable Peter Van Loan.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

In the last presidential cycle, how many presidential debates took place?

[Janet Brown]

There were three presidential and one vice-presidential.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Were they all under your auspices?

[Janet Brown]

Yes.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

I think you alluded to occasions when candidates have said.... Have there have been other debates since you've been established that have taken place outside your auspices and have been broadcast?

[Janet Brown]

No.