Evidence of meeting #84 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was debates.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Janet Brown  Executive Director, Commission on Presidential Debates

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC

Thank you. I have one very short question.

You talked earlier about working with 32 debate commissions around the world. I'm wondering if you can tell me more about who they are and what you do with them.

12:45 p.m.

Executive Director, Commission on Presidential Debates

Janet Brown

Yes. In fact, I would invite you all to go to our website, debatesinternational.org, and there you will see the members and the information exchange, which is the focus of our work. We have a number of South American entities involved. We did a lot of work in Argentina two years ago. In fact, a colleague of mine and I just got back from Mexico City, where a conversation along these lines is also happening. Interestingly, as you may well know, their election authority is the debate sponsor, and it's something that they are wrestling with in terms of whether to go forward that way.

We have quite a number of countries in Africa that are doing extremely brave and pioneering work, particularly Ghana. We have Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, and a number of the former Soviet Union countries. Serbia has done some really revolutionary work in format. These are very brave people. We're all equals learning from each other.

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC

Thank you.

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON

If I may, Mr. Chair, I have a very quick point.

If you do go to that website—and this is selfish and shameless self-promotion—you will see that we are the top story on debatesinternational.org. I encourage everyone to visit.

12:45 p.m.

Voices

Oh, oh!

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

That's very good to know. I'll repeat that: Canada is at the top of what, 38 countries?

I'm going to morph this into open format. I'll allow one question from any committee member.

Mr. Dusseault.

12:45 p.m.

NDP

Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC

There is a question I did not get a chance to ask earlier.

I would like to know, given that you represent the image of your organization, and its credibility and impartiality, how you were chosen. This is a situation we will probably experience here in Canada, when this organization is set up. No matter what the organization may be, it is always up to the person who represents it to ensure its credibility and neutrality.

I'd like to know how you were chosen, and what the process was.

12:45 p.m.

Executive Director, Commission on Presidential Debates

Janet Brown

That's something I wonder about myself.

I had worked in the government for, I guess, 15 years when my name was submitted to the founding co-chairs as a possible staff director for the commission. Due to the fact that I had worked for individuals such as former ambassador Elliott Richardson and former senator John Danforth of Missouri, I think I was seen as somebody that hopefully would be credible to people on both sides of the aisle and, equally important, to people from the other parties that participate and were interested in this process. I had some media experience, and Washington is my original home.

It's not an easy task. I'm grateful that I was considered, but it's hard to find someone who will not be a flashpoint and will be someone who can be out front and try to explain to the public who this group is and why you should trust them.

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

How are the chairman of the board and the board selected?

12:45 p.m.

Executive Director, Commission on Presidential Debates

Janet Brown

The original board was selected as an outgrowth of that original study in 1985, the Strauss-Laird study. At the time, Paul Kirk and Frank Fahrenkopf were the chairs of the Democratic and Republican national committees respectively. They took steps to incorporate the commission and served as the founding chairs. They ended their partisan political service shortly thereafter, and there has never been any other tie between a board member and the political parties.

There is a nominating function that is outlined in the bylaws, which is internal to the board. There's a nominating committee, which is named by the chairs and consults inside and outside in looking for new members of the board.

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Thank you.

Do other members have questions?

Parliamentary Secretary Fillmore.

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Andy Fillmore Liberal Halifax, NS

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for your words today. It looks like what we're hearing from a number of witnesses—you may have learned this from your reading—is that a light and agile structure is the preferred structure in terms of something that will allow flexibility for who knows what...conditions may change in the future.

What you have learned, I guess, is what I want to ask you about. What would be the lightest sort of agile structure that might work for us? What key pieces need to be in place that would still allow flexibility?

12:50 p.m.

Executive Director, Commission on Presidential Debates

Janet Brown

When I saw that phrase in someone's testimony, I underlined it. I couldn't agree more. If you create something that is large, you've already given a management to-do list that may run into the actual task at hand. I think the lighter you can make it.... I guess it can't get too much lighter than two people, which is where we are, although for a long time it was one person, so that's a bit lighter.

I think the most important thing is to define the tasks and who and how many people you need to get that done. We all know that when you create a new organization you can go for broke with things that ideally one might think you would want or could use, but this is a unique business. I would argue that it's very important to define what you really need and what you need to do. There are debate variables that are out there; they're defined. It's the number of debates and the length of them: what do they look like and how do you get to where you need to be in terms of both sponsorship and production of those tasks?

Again, as I said, a lot of thought went into the commission. By the time I was hired, there had been two full years of work given to this. If we can share that in a way that helps inform your deliberations, I'd be delighted, but I think being light and agile is critical.

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Andy Fillmore Liberal Halifax, NS

Do you feel that there is a right number of debates? Are there too many debates? Are there too few? Is there a right number that the public has an appetite for and will tune in for?

12:50 p.m.

Executive Director, Commission on Presidential Debates

Janet Brown

In our case, there has been a traditional observation of Labour Day as the start of the general election period. This means that we've never started the debates before the first week of September.

Also, there is a general reluctance on the part of the candidates to ever have a debate within 10 days to two weeks of the general election. There is a sense in some campaigns that debates freeze the campaign, and that the candidate has to stop and prepare and really focus on the debate.

Given all the other things that a campaign wants to get done during September and October, it has led us to believe that three presidential debates of 90 minutes apiece, without commercial interruption, is about right. In trying to go for four, there might be a problem to get candidate agreement, and I don't think two is enough to cover the number of topics that are key on both domestic and international policy.

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Andy Fillmore Liberal Halifax, NS

To go one layer deeper yet, are they themed debates on the economy, the environment, etc.?

12:50 p.m.

Executive Director, Commission on Presidential Debates

Janet Brown

In the last two cycles, we have done something different that's worked very well. The first and last presidential debates have been divided into six 15-minute segments. Each of those segments is on a topic that the moderators select and announce roughly 10 days before the debate. The segment starts with a question that is posed to all of the debate participants. They have two minutes to respond, and the balance of the 15 minutes is used for a discussion, with minimal participation by the moderator. In the last two cycles, those have in fact been divided between domestic and foreign topics. That is the way it has worked.

It's not an open-book exam, but it does allow the candidates to understand that these are going to focus on the salient issues and what they are.

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Can you remind us who chooses the topics, who writes the questions, who chooses the moderator, and what the conditions are for a moderator to be chosen?

12:50 p.m.

Executive Director, Commission on Presidential Debates

Janet Brown

In the reverse order, we choose the moderators, and we use three criteria in that process: number one, someone who is intimately familiar with the candidates and their positions on the issues; number two, someone who has had extensive experience in live TV; and number three, someone who will understand that, for better or for worse, they are not on the ballot. They are there to facilitate, not to compete. The moderators alone choose and know the questions. The commission does not know. The candidates do not know.

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Mr. Graham.

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC

Earlier you said that the threshold is set at 15% for participation in debates.

December 7th, 2017 / 12:55 p.m.

Executive Director, Commission on Presidential Debates

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC

Why is it so high?

12:55 p.m.

Executive Director, Commission on Presidential Debates

Janet Brown

If you are not at 15% support in the polls four weeks before the election, I think history would show that there is virtually no chance you will be elected by the amount of the American public that would be needed for that. Many of you may be familiar with the experience of the League of Women Voters in 1980 when John Anderson, who had been a member of the United States House of Representatives from Illinois, was running as an independent. He was invited by the league to participate in the first debate with then Governor Reagan. President Carter, the incumbent, declined to participate because he basically said he was not going to share the stage with someone who was not a majority and not a competitive candidate. So the first debate was Mr. Reagan and Mr. Anderson. The league reapplied the criteria after that first debate, and Mr. Anderson did not meet the criteria. The second and only debate between Mr. Carter and Mr. Reagan took place thereafter.

There is always the risk that a candidate who has a great deal of support will decline to participate if they believe that a candidate who does not have a realistic chance of being elected has been included in a debate in the last three to four weeks of the campaign. This is simply the way the commission has done it. There are people who think that it should be much lower, or that it should be based on ballot access and not on percentage support. If a debate sponsor came forth and said they wanted to sponsor debates using different criteria, they would have every right to do that. There is nothing that says that the commission is the only entity that could put forth a proposal, but this is where our board of directors has come out on this issue. It is thoroughly reviewed, by the way, in between every series of debates to see whether it needs to be altered.

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Thank you.

Ms. Tassi.