Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Dec. 12th, 2017

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

My first question is for you, Ms. Coyne. When Radio-Canada appeared as a witness before this committee, they talked about being in discussions with Google and Facebook during the 2015 election. Were you also in discussion with the consortium at the time, and were you guys trying to create a role for Twitter?

[Bridget Coyne]

We work with all the media broadcasters in Canada and likely in that case offered them the same services as in every other debate, with data and partnerships to tune in as well.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

You also stated previously that the role Twitter played in this last American election was quite great, with more users tweeting about the election and the debates. However, for the turnout in that debate.... I'm not saying this is necessarily because Twitter was involved, but it's just an interesting observation that the voter turnout, even though there were so many people engaged with different platforms, was lower.

As for what we've seen in terms of our last election, sometimes this committee has discussed the fact that perhaps because of the breakdown of the consortium model and the fact that we had all these various platforms airing the debate, which people did not expect, we had fewer viewers tuning in, and it was somehow an injustice to the democratic process because people were not as engaged or informed about the leaders and the platforms of the different parties.

Twitter was around then, and people were using Twitter quite a lot. Some of those debates were online. They were in various formats. How do you explain that even though we had the variety—it wasn't created by the consortium—we still had fewer people tuning in? How do we change that?

Ms. Lau, you stated that your job is to target certain markets and not to necessarily reach the broadest viewership with just one model. Our struggle and my struggle on this committee is that I do want to reach the broadest viewership, but I want there to be a way to still target those who do not watch by the regular means.

[Andree Lau]

I think the answer is echoed by my colleagues from La Presse: make it available to everyone. Hit every possible outlet, platform, and distribution and have those places decide how to package it and how to distribute it, not just on the night it happens or the next day, but over the next three weeks. Maybe they can repackage things as topics come up during the campaign, but open access to all I think is key, because that way you are hitting every mark. You're just going for it instead of limiting it—

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

How many debates do you think we should be having?

[Andree Lau]

I'm sorry; I just mean the distribution, let's say, of one main debate, and having that distribution access open to everyone.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Do you think we should limit the number of debates, though—or, rather, that there should there be a limited number?

[Andree Lau]

I can't prescribe a certain number. I think it's common sense to say that people can pay attention to only so many national debates. I mean, if you start going to 20 or 30, they're all going to tune out, but I can't give you a magic number.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

You're thinking a layering approach is better?

[Andree Lau]

Yes.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

It's better to have a few debates rather than a variety of different debates at different times? In your opening remarks, I think you mentioned something about different formats and different times.

[Andree Lau]

It requires more investigation, because you could go two different ways, as you mentioned. One way is a concentrated handful and then distributing all of them, but it doesn't preclude you from other smaller outlets doing targeted ones and having those distributed as well. Those are hosted by smaller outlets, but they're also distributed to all.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

This question goes out to all of the witnesses today: how do you think the commission or commissioner—whatever model it takes—should be funded? Should it be funded through the government? Should it be funded through outside sources? Funding for the American commission is based on fundraising they do through private citizens and corporations. I'm wondering what you think the Canadian model should have.

[François Cardinal]

I'm going to answer both of your questions at the same time.

I think what the committee members have to do is find a way to organize a major debate in each official language that leaders cannot avoid, an event that is eagerly anticipated because it is recognized as the most important debate of the election campaign, one that is meant to draw as many Canadian viewers as possible. The debate could be publicly funded.

As for whether to limit the number of debates or make a variety of debates mandatory, I would say that the answer should be up to us, in the media. We should be able to hold 18 other small debates if we so desire; that should be for the media to organize.

What parliamentarians need to do is create a not-to-be-missed event that all the leaders have to attend. Canadians should expect something to happen that evening, given all the momentum leading up to the event.

[Andree Lau]

That's a fine proposal, because in the past what's been prohibitive or a barrier for smaller outlets to join a pool is the cost.

[Bridget Coyne]

Twitter works with all the media partners and gives them a lot of free tools, which we invest in as well, so live streaming is possible because we have a service called “Periscope” through which we enable people to take their feed onto Twitter. We also acquired a company in 2014 called “SnappyTV”. That's really the engine that powers a lot of clips of live television on Twitter, and it is available for free for all media broadcasters. We take on a lot of the responsibility to make sure this content is available.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Do I have another minute left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

You have 30 seconds.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Do you think the commission should be legislated through Parliament? The commission in the U.S. is not legislated. It's a body that everyone just adheres to, but I worry sometimes about where they derive their authority. Are there any last-minute remarks? Are there no opinions on that?

Okay. I guess that's all we have time for.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

We'll now go on to our last questioner, Mr. Richards.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I have just one quick question. I've been listening to the conversation today and listening to the questions and answers. There's been a lot of talk about the variety of different formats, a lot of talk about viewership and the changing nature of it. I'm curious as to the thoughts each of you has on this. In order for a debate to be a national debate, there are varying opinions out there. It seems that some people believe that unless the major networks carry a debate, it's not really a national debate. I would assume there are others, especially as has been mentioned, millennials, who don't have cable or satellite or things like that and who get their news or their programming in other ways. For them it probably isn't necessary that it be a national debate.

I want to hear your thoughts—each of you—as to whether it has to be carried by CBC and CTV in order to be a national debate.

[Andree Lau]

I don't think so. I think the Internet has become the great equalizer.

Certainly I think everyone agrees that we want a certain production quality. Whether it's a body such as CPAC or CBC and whoever, we still want that quality behind it, but does it have to be carried by the networks in order to be defined as a national debate? I don't think so. I think that goes to the people who are participating.

[Bridget Coyne]

We're open to all formats in that regard, and we'll commit all sorts of partnership opportunities. One thing we use on our platform every day is a hashtag emoji. That's a guiding light to tell you that this is the hashtag you should use for the debate.

That's something we can commit to.

[François Cardinal]

I tend to disagree with the idea that it isn't necessary to broadcast the debate on television. I think that, in order for it to truly be a national debate, it has to be carried by CBC, Radio-Canada or some other major network.

We saw that with the Montreal mayoral debate I mentioned earlier. The leaders' debate was broadcast by the mainstream print media organizations: La Presse, the Métro newspaper, and Le Devoir. The event was much less popular and had much less of an impact because it was not broadcast by the major television networks.

Yes, it's important to appeal to younger Canadians who do not watch television, but not necessarily all Canadians are on Twitter or read the Huffington Post either. My view is that the debate should absolutely be broadcast on a wide scale, at least in the case of a national debate in both official languages.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

To follow up on that, Mr. Cardinal, I guess there's been some talk about requiring leaders to participate. In this case you're indicating that your thoughts are that it would have to be broadcast on the national networks to be a national debate. Would you then apply that principle to the networks? Would they be required to carry debates that were set up? Would we force that, mandate that, and they wouldn't have a choice?