Evidence of meeting #85 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 twitter.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:30 a.m.
Senior Manager, Public Policy, Twitter Inc.
We're open to working with CPAC as a media broadcaster—and Elections Canada, or whatever other group of folks who want to partner with Twitter—to bring more people into the process.
11:30 a.m.
Yann Pineau Senior Director, Continuous Improvement, La Presse
I'd like to say something, if I may.
In order to reach as many voters as possible, a debate should be broadcast not just live, but also in delayed time. Not everyone is available to watch a debate at the same time, and not everyone necessarily wants to watch the full two hours of a debate. Reaching as many voters as possible means being able to replay a debate and break it up into smaller, more digestible segments.
11:30 a.m.
Editorial Page Editor, La Presse
I would simply add that making a debate available, in delayed time, on a website such as La Presse's is a potential solution that we haven't really seen in the past. It is clear that this is a one-shot deal event, and then it is over. I would say that posting the full debate, whether on YouTube or platforms such as La Presse or The Huffington Post, is a must in 2017.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
I appreciate that.
Coming from someone who doesn't have cable or satellite, that ability to engage online is where my generation.... One of you mentioned Abacus Data. That's exactly where we're going. It really questions, to some degree, the relevance of the major broadcasters in terms of this discussion, when so many people from the millennial generation, who will make up the largest voting segment, are not going to be using those traditional formats.
11:30 a.m.
Editor-in-Chief, HuffPost Canada
Sorry, can I just...? There is one more thing to keep in mind.
There is the live stream for sure, but we've run into problems in that after the live stream is over, we couldn't record it. We have to depend on the broadcaster to provide the recorded tape; sometimes that's an hour later, and sometimes it's 24 hours later. There is also an understanding of what digital outlets need, which is that we need it immediately so that we can package it for our users and get it to them so they can watch it at their convenience.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
That's a good point. Thank you. I appreciate that.
I want to talk a bit about the number of debates and the variety of debates. In the last election, there were five debates. In the past, there have been one English and one French. In 2005-2006, there were two English and two French.
What significance do you place on having a variety of debates, whether it be a variety of formats, topics, or combinations of political leaders? What significance would you place on that aspect of debates?
11:35 a.m.
Editor-in-Chief, HuffPost Canada
From our experience doing the digital town halls that we've had at HuffPost Canada, what's been interesting is that the most engagement has come from an ability to talk directly to cabinet ministers—perhaps not the leaders who are in the spotlight, but people who hold considerable influence in cabinet, because the public generally doesn't have a chance to interact with them on those types of very specific issues.
I would ask that you consider that those types of specific topics become possible areas of focus so that people can focus down their questions. A lot of times the general leaders' debates are very broad, and there is only so much time to briefly touch on a topic before they jump on to something else.
11:35 a.m.
Senior Manager, Public Policy, Twitter Inc.
I would defer to the commission to determine the number of debates.
I think it's important to make sure that people know how to tune in, and that this is a clear part of the process so that people aren't fragmented and miss a debate. There's also the replay functionality to be able to see the clips.
In terms of topics, having some nimbleness based on the live conversation is really helpful. We saw that play out in the U.S. presidential debate in November 2015, when a Twitter user sent a tweet, and that changed the entire course of the debate. The moderator was able to see that question in real time and pivot to address Hillary Clinton head-on, based on a user's feedback.
11:35 a.m.
Editorial Page Editor, La Presse
There are three key things I would add to that.
First of all, it's important to have at least one major debate in each official language. I think that's a given for everyone.
Second, having a variety of formats is important, not just to appeal to Canadians, but also to test the leaders in various debate formats. The debate I moderated during the Montreal municipal election was a highly structured debate organized by the chamber of commerce, and the questions were of interest to the general public and very much focused on public issues. Conversely, in English, the questions came mostly from voters. The different formats, then, put the leaders to the test in different roles.
Third, having debates that focus on various themes is also important. Some people take a very narrow view of current affairs, only paying attention to specific issues such as health or youth. In 2012, La Presse organized candidate debates around such themes as health, and I know they were very popular. It's important to bear in mind that only certain issues interest some people.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
I just have a quick question. You may not have time to answer it.
I believe La Presse mentioned forcing leaders to attend debates. Do you have any thoughts on how that would work in a practical sense? How do you require a leader to show up? What mechanisms should be there to make that happen?
11:35 a.m.
Editorial Page Editor, La Presse
I know witnesses who appeared before the committee in recent weeks put forward various scenarios.
I think it is possible to establish a mechanism to somehow punish a leader who fails to participate in a leaders' debate or perhaps just the most important one. I would say it's necessary to impose some sort of sanction. It is always in the incumbent prime minister's interest to reduce an opponent's visibility. I think, then, that such a mechanism is needed. Requiring leaders to take part in at least one leaders' debate in each official language is an important way to facilitate Canadians' participation in the democratic process.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
11:35 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Just temporarily, Chair.
Thank you all for being here.
I have a couple of observations. I'm at least one generation, if not two, ahead of Mr. Nater, but I can tell you that the life he just described is my daughter. She's 25 and she doesn't have cable. She wouldn't dream of it. She doesn't do appointment TV, and she wants everything on her mobile. Exactly what you said is my daughter and her colleagues, to a T.
I also just note, as I thought it was interesting, that now all of a sudden anybody who's not digital is legacy media. Words matter. It's interesting.
That's an observation. I'll just leave that there.
I want to start, Chair, with Mr. Cardinal's remarks. I thought it was important that he said what he did. If I can repeat it in English, he said, “If we're here this morning, that's in large part because the leader of a major federal party refused to take part in the English-language debate organized by the consortium in 2015”, and that's the truth of it. That's what riled me up in terms of the debate's failure. Aside from my own partisanship, citizens were denied what they needed in an election by virtue of not having that major debate. Something's got to be done.
Having said that, I have an observation. It needs to be said. The major party that wouldn't show up was the Conservatives, and it's the same party that's even refusing to make a submission to this committee.
We need to understand that there's a pattern here. There's one particular party here that doesn't want these debates, because that fits their agenda. How many of their candidates in the last two federal elections wouldn't even go to local debates?
Now, we're not dealing with that, but it does speak to a strategy, and if you take a look—I'll just throw this out there—at what they did in their last piece of legislation, the “un” Fair Elections Act, and add it all up, it does not conclude to their being a leading participant in democratic elections and debates. That's my partisan part.
Mr. Cardinal, I've been a little disappointed in some of the major consortium players, the big media, because most of you have refused to take a position on whether it's a good idea to have a commission or not. I suppose I can maybe try to figure that out, but it's disappointing for me in trying to do my best in a non-partisan way when the biggest players are sitting back and saying they don't really want to comment on whether there should be this or that, but these are the things I'd like to see happen.
I pose to you, sir, that if we don't go down this road.... You seem to agree that the last occasion failed Canadians. If we don't go down the road to a commission, then what do we do to prevent failure and to ensure we don't have a repeat of that if we don't take some action?
If it's not this action, what action would you recommend?
11:40 a.m.
Editorial Page Editor, La Presse
That's an excellent question. To be perfectly frank, I find it a bit unsettling.
I'll explain my hesitation regarding the creation of a commissioner. From one year to the next, from one political cycle to the next, from one election cycle to the next, things change very quickly. Five years ago, broadcasters were still king, calling the shots. Today, a media outlet like La Presse would no longer have a print presence. Our full transition is just a few days away, in fact. Next year, La Presse will exist entirely in digital format. Would having a structured body headed by a commissioner allow for innovation at a rapid enough pace to stay ahead of the curve? The comments of my Twitter and Huffington Post counterparts show that we could very well have an altogether different position if we were to appear before the committee next year. The reason is simple: we try to keep pace with our readers, regardless of their age.
That is why I did not take a stand today. My fear is that such a structured mechanism might prevent innovation.
I am, however, in favour of some sort of debate oversight so that no political party can shirk their responsibilities from one election to the next. If the creation of a commissioner turns out to be the lesser evil, I will support it.
11:40 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you. That's helpful.
That really is helpful, because we can link what you just said—that we'd like to see that kind of flexibility—to other important issues being raised by Mesdames Coyne and Lau in terms of who chooses the moderator and whether that reflects all of Canada, providing access to the digital after a broadcast, the timing of when it should happen, and real-time influence in debates. Those were just a few of the ideas I heard, but they can only be implemented if we have some kind of framework. I think I heard you saying the same thing, that we need something.
The only place I depart—and I'd be open to having people change me on this, because I seem to be marching a little differently than the army—is that everybody is talking about a sanction on a leader who does not attend. It seems to me that if we profile the debates well enough, in the way we should, the sanction is that you wouldn't dare not show up, because a price would be paid. With regard to the idea of imposing a sanction on a democratic leader in what they do or don't do, my initial reaction is to back off a bit. Let's set it up so that we can say, “I double-dog dare you not to go.” That's a little more open.
My sense—and we're getting close to giving instructions and stuff like that—is that we do need something. I can tell you that I'm listening to my colleagues over here, and we have a repeat coming down the line. Make no mistake: if we don't do something, we're going to be back where we were, guaranteed.
I want to make sure that while there's an openness to doing something now—and I'm looking at the majority government—we put in some kind of framework. I don't really care what we call it or where we put it, although I have some ideas based on the submissions, but it still seems to me that we, as a nation, need to have some kind of framework that guarantees that Canadians will have at least those two major focal points, which are two major national debates, in French and in English, if nothing else, and I would assume, listening to Mr. Nater, that there would be a whole lot of other things too. Those are all great.
However, the absence of that one big debate was a real failure on our part as a country to provide a democratic means for all of us to understand the issues and where the parties were.
I have to say that I'm heading into our next in camera session with a view that we need to do something. It needs to be light and it needs to be something that doesn't create a permanent bureaucracy and it needs to be nimble, but more than anything, it needs to take into account all the changes that are happening. The framework needs to provide for that kind of flexibility to happen, and then hopefully we can frame this up well enough. You'll do your job, and we'll do ours to promote what it's going to be when we finally get it.
Again, just leave it to the party leaders. Dare them to not show up and say to Canadians why that's their role in democracy and why they should be the prime minister when they won't even come to the debate.
If I have time, I'll give it to you.
11:45 a.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
11:45 a.m.
Editorial Page Editor, La Presse
Mr. Christopherson, I'd like to add one thing, if I may.
I don't think leaders who fail to show up to a debate pay a democratic price or other penalty in voters' minds. People don't even remember that, in the 2015 election, one of the two major party leaders did not participate in the English-language debate.
That is why I believe some sort of sanction is necessary, if only to force a leader to show up to a leaders' debate. Two or three days later, Canadians have already forgotten about it.
11:45 a.m.
NDP
