Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Jan. 30th, 2018

[Noel daCosta]

We have had instances. Generally they are accepted because we have learned how to choose the less politically biased journalists. In the past we have had journalists who have been questioned by the political parties, but I don't think we have ever removed any.

[Trevor Fearon]

No. In the end we haven't, but as you had said there is a certain degree of.... We will know, or a political party will advise us, whether a certain journalist has been writing speeches for the opposing party, or has been doing a, b, or c, and therefore they don't think it is a good idea for that person to be selected. When cases like that arise we can certainly adjust our list.

We work with a list. The journalists are invited. They have to agree to sit on the panel in the first place. Sometimes it's a process of attrition, but we end up with a panel that both parties are either comfortable with or not opposed to.

[Noel daCosta]

I should just add that all the work of the journalists, the commission, and the resource persons is voluntary: nobody gets paid.

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

Very good. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

Now I'm looking forward to Mr. Christopherson's questions, maybe on the ads. Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much for your presentation. I have a close affinity with Jamaica. A few years ago I was there under the auspices of GOPAC, the Global Organization of Politicians Against Corruption, the Canadian chapter, and we were doing some work with your public accounts department and your auditor general. Far more importantly, I just came back a couple of weeks ago from being on your beaches and I wish I was still there.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you so very much for taking the time. This has been very helpful. I have a couple of areas I would like to explore.

I was very intrigued by the fact that the party that chose to pull out of the debates lost the election. We had the same situation, except we have no evidence yet that I've seen that the refusal to participate in the national debates had any role in it. I found it fascinating that you were able to discern through polling, I think you said, that indeed it was a major factor.

One of the issues we're looking at is if there is a refusal to participate, what, if any, are the repercussions. Is there any disciplinary action? I, for one, have been very reluctant to go down that road of imposing some kind of a sanction on a party refusing to participate in a debate. It's the whole idea of trying to legislate what happens in the dynamics of an election. However, I'm open to it if that's the only tool to ensure that we don't have a repeat of the disgrace that we saw last time, where we did not have the kind of national leaders' debate that Canadians expect.

Sorry for the long preamble, but all of that is to ask you: what do you think that was about, the public outcry and the role of the media? Were there editorials, protests, online protests? Can you give me an idea of the manifestation of the anger or the upset that took place that led to it being a factor in people's decision-making?

[Noel daCosta]

It was all available. Editorials spoke to it. Social media went berserk when they found out there would be no debates. There were letters to the editor. The business community was quite upset. Business organizations wrote to the newspaper decrying the fact there was not going to be a debate so that people could see the platform of both parties in an unbiased and non-hyped environment. There was a public outcry.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That's beautiful.

[Noel daCosta]

The poll that was done afterwards was done by the party that lost—we didn't do the poll; we did our own private poll. Their finding, which they also published, was that their decision not to debate was fatal. Those are their words.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That's great. That's where we want to get. That's where we want to be. We want to make it such that whatever the regime necessary, no one would dare say no again to a national debate. Certainly that's what's motivating me. I just love that you had that outcry because that's the best kind of regime to have: where you don't have the rules, it's the public that says that this is unacceptable, that if you go down this road, you're going to pay a price. I'm just thrilled to hear that.

What do you see right now as your major challenge? We're always looking for improvements, ways to do things better. What's on your horizon to continue to push to be as effective as you can?

[Noel daCosta]

I think our challenge right now is to get secure funding for our work. As I mentioned, we're all volunteers. There has been talk within the private sector of some institutionalizing of the work that we do. To that end, we have registered ourselves as a legal entity. Before that we were just a partnership of a media association and chamber of commerce.

That would be what we are putting forward, looking at a secure source of funding rather than the whims of someone, and to ensure some structured continuity for what we do.

[Trevor Fearon]

I would add one point there. Up to the 2016 general election, we were pretty much thinking that the debates were institutionalized, that because of the previous election cycles we would probably get some push-back and some rough treatment at the hands of a political party. It was sufficiently institutionalized that no party would decide not to. It was a rude awakening to us. We realized that the process of institutionalization of the debates process is a constant work in progress. The fact that we were able to get so much support from all parts of society—calling upon the parties to debate, insisting that it take place—was because we managed to build coalitions with our great variety of entities in civil society, etc.

That process is one that has to go on and it's something that we are devoted to carrying on.

[Noel daCosta]

Perhaps I could add one point. I suppose you will have a similar issue. We don't have fixed election dates, so the parties can call an election tomorrow. We have to be in a constant state of readiness to put on a debate within a short period of time. That has some challenges, particularly when you have to go out and source funding before putting on the debate.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you so very much for your answers. I appreciate it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We'll go on to Mr. Bittle.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you so much for coming and helping us out on this project.

One issue we heard about from traditional media outlets in Canada is that they looked to the timing of the debate and they wanted to put it on at a time when it wasn't up against a popular sporting event or a popular television show because they wanted to get as many eyeballs on the debates as possible. Can you tell us how you determine the timing of a debate in Jamaica?

[Noel daCosta]

We also have that issue. Fortunately for us, our partners in this are the media association. They're quite willing to cut us a lot of slack. Our debates typically start at nine o'clock, which is after all the major news shows have taken place. Even though they are partners, we have to pay them for airtime. We like to think we get some concessions on those rates. They have been publicly displaying things like a willingness to accommodate us in the timing of the debates. We have been having it at nine o'clock since we started. We have had no issues other than the background noises that we're missing this program or that program. We've been able to do it through the good relationship we have with our partners.

[Trevor Fearon]

The fact is that we have a short window. Usually we know it has to take place within a period of, say, a week and a half—all three debates. It's a matter of negotiating with the parties. If one party is having its major and final mass gathering, we know it's not going to be that night. Similarly for the other party. We generally try to include a weekend, usually a Saturday, for the final debate, or a Friday. These are all high viewership nights, and we also try to slot the other two in the week before. That has worked out with the parties. The agreement is that both are going to claim they are suffering because of particular issues, but since both are suffering, they're willing to live with it.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Just in terms of comparing the two election cycles—because we do have fixed elections in Canada, but minority governments can happen, and then in that time an election can happen at any moment—how long are your elections typically?

[Noel daCosta]

Between nomination day and election day, there are 21 days. We don't have the debates before nomination day because we're not sure who the parties are going to put up for election, theoretically. Between nomination day and election day, within that 21-day period, we have to plan and execute those three debates, culminating with the leadership debate.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

What work does the organization do to take into account persons with disabilities who may not have the ability to access a broadcast in the same way that you or I may be able to do?

[Noel daCosta]

We have signers for the hearing impaired. I think that's the only concession we make.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Excellent.

In terms of the dissemination of the broadcast—and I think you touched on it—you have to pay for the airtime.