Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 12th, 2022

[Michel Cormier, Executive Director, Leaders' Debates Commission]

We expect to continue to do the work and continue to evaluate what the best debate practices are, not just here but abroad. We're already in contact with debates producers in other countries, because there are a lot of elections this year. We want to make sure we gather the best expertise possible on issues like moderation, format, distribution and reach, to make sure the next debates are even more successful than the last ones. That's what the—

[Marilyn Gladu]

Very good.

With respect to the moderators, are they paid a fee or a stipend? If so, can you give us an idea of how much that is?

[The Right Hon. David Johnston]

Can you ask the question again? How much it is for the...?

[Marilyn Gladu]

Do you pay the moderators a stipend or a fee to moderate? How much is it?

[The Right Hon. David Johnston]

Go ahead, Chantal.

[Chantal Ouimet, Director of Communications, Leaders' Debates Commission]

It's part of the production budget.

[The Right Hon. David Johnston]

Let me come back to the earlier question, which is a very important one.

One of the exercises we will do is work during that period with the request for the debates producer and team and not leave that to the actual election period. In working with that chosen debates production team, we have the necessary consultation, particularly with respect to format and particularly with respect to the qualities of the moderator.

In doing that, we really develop our reach into the broader scholarly community in and around what makes for the best debates, why they're essential in our democratic process and how we can do better in Canada. There's a wide body of knowledge there that we have been tapping into, and we have found it enormously helpful. I think there—

[Marilyn Gladu]

It's in the production specialists budget.

[The Right Hon. David Johnston]

It's specifically production, yes.

[Marilyn Gladu]

Do we know how many moderators you've had? I'm trying to get an idea of what they get to do in a debate.

[The Right Hon. David Johnston]

That comes within the purview, as Chantal has said, of the allocation we make to the debates production team to carry out the debate. What we have funded is looking at traditionally what the debates production team, usually led by CBC/Radio-Canada, does as traditional debates, and then we're prepared to pay for what is necessary going forward to accomplish broader objectives.

[Marilyn Gladu]

Thank you. That doesn't really tell me how much, but anyway, I'll move on.

In terms of the format, what feedback have your received? What changes would you make in the length of questions, or what other changes would you make to enhance the debates?

[The Right Hon. David Johnston]

That's really a very important question.

This has been an iterative process. In the two exercises we've had, we have gotten greater familiarity with what makes for the best public interest in debates.

The debates production team had the responsibility for choosing the moderator and, largely, the responsibility for the format. Coming out of the 2021 debate, the change that we are proposing is that the commission should have the ultimate responsibility for both the format and the choice of moderator. From our studies around other jurisdictions and at home, the role of the moderator is really very essential in terms of the quality of the debate.

Let me develop that a little bit, because it's important to understand the different components of this and who should be responsible for what. We are proposing that the debates commission has ultimate responsibility for the format. That involves the forum, the town hall and whether the debate is open or not to audiences; the number of segments and determination of segments; opening and closing statements; participation from audience, panellists or guests; video packages, etc.

Another component is the timing: the length of the debate, the length of each segment, how long each leader has to answer a question, how much time should be devoted to each theme, the length of open debate sections and the number of questions posed to each leader, but not the themes or topics of the questions. It's very interesting that in the 2008 debates there were eight questions, and in the 2021 debate there were 45, which is a very different style altogether.

We're recommending that the commission have ultimate responsibility for the moderation, which heretofore has been in the hands of the debate producer. The role of the moderator refers to any person on the stage, including journalists, asking questions. The moderator must steer or chair the debate, keep track of timing and engage with leaders by posing questions and following up with questions to the leaders.

For greater clarity, a journalist who's on the stage engaging with leaders, asking them questions and follow-up questions, is, for that period of time, a de facto moderator. A member of the public who's seated in the audience or live, etc., is not.

Then we come to a very important category—there's a fair amount of controversy about this—and that is editorial. The editorial components of the debate include the themes and questions to the leaders, including determining those themes and questions, the order of the themes and questions and indeed the specific wording of each question. Essentially, editorial control is what the leaders are talking about—the themes and the questions they're being asked. Moderation is who asks these questions; format is how the mechanics of the debate unfold. Where are the logistics—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

[The Right Hon. David Johnston]

We're suggesting that the final choice for moderation should be the commission.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

That was excellent; thank you.

I will pass it over to Mr. Turnbull now for five minutes.

This is a reminder that we are here to talk about the estimates, and our time is very limited.

Mr. Turnbull, it's over to you.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the Right Honourable David Johnston for being with us today and to the other members of your team at the Leaders' Debates Commission for being here. We really appreciate your time and all the work you do.

It's clear from your opening remarks that you delivered on the vast majority of your mandate, although certainly we can all recognize that there are some improvements that can be made. I appreciated your report and your opening remarks because you've been quite candid about the areas where there's been some feedback about where the debate could be improved significantly.

You made it very clear that the areas are the format and the moderation, and you've provided a list of suggested solutions. For me and many others, we viewed or even called this particular debate—I'm referring to the English debate in the last election—as more of a journalists' showdown. I think that's how it felt for people.

Minister LeBlanc, when he was here earlier, said it's really about what informs the public discourse the best. What information does the public really want to get out of the leaders' debate?

We all know that it's a high-intensity moment. It's a high-pressure moment for a general election, and there's a lot riding on it, so I think it's really important that we work to get it right.

I wondered if anybody had worked back from what the public.... If we took the average citizen and asked what they really wanted to get out of the debate, how do we preserve that within the format? Certainly the format really impacts on what they get out of it.

I've heard stories of people who turned the channel; they didn't watch the debate. They started to watch it and were turned off quite quickly. That was very disappointing to me as someone running in the election, of course.

I'll pose that question through you, Madam Chair. I would welcome any remarks you have.

[The Right Hon. David Johnston]

That's such an important question. We've consulted a lot on that, and we've tried to capture some of that consultation in our report. In particular, the widespread work of the Canadian elections study group, led by the University of Toronto but with people across the country, tried to answer that question and others, and their work is reflected in changes we're suggesting for the next iteration.

Number one, the public wants to understand the policy positions and the platforms of the parties as clearly and in as much depth as they possibly can through the election campaign, but particularly through the debates. Number two, they want to get a sense of who the leaders are. What kind of leaders are they going to be? What do they stand for? What are their values? What are their abilities to take the positions of their party and lead them into concrete action? I think those two are essential.

It's interesting to me that in these consultations, people said that in listening to the debates, they were not interested in entertainment and not particularly focused on the knockout blow that entertainment often provides, but were interested in seriousness, thoughtfulness and probing that would permit a citizen to engage more thoughtfully in exercising his or her vote.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you for that response. It was really great, and that's what I was hoping to hear.

Working from that, and looking at the debate format, could there be more time, in general, for the debate? Could it be a bit longer? Could there be a different arrangement?

Certainly there's been a suggestion that maybe there should be fewer questions. It certainly felt like there were many good journalistic questions that came forward in that last debate. With some exception, I was impressed by the questions, but that was sort of what most people were left with. There were great questions, but almost no contrast of answers from political parties. Certainly fewer questions would leave more time for responses. Anyway, maybe I'll leave that for the moment. That's more of a comment.

In some of your suggestions, you've talked about looking for individuals who have neutrality. I wonder how, within a selection process, you can really ensure that you get a moderator who has political neutrality.

[The Right Hon. David Johnston]

Really, that's quite fundamental. As you can see, we've spent a fair amount of time in our report trying to understand that. What are the qualities of the best kind of moderator? Of particular interest, the experiences of other jurisdictions are very helpful, underlining the importance of that individual, both in forming the questions and then dealing with them with the leaders.

It's very clear that the best moderator is one who is sort of invisible. This is an opportunity for the leaders to present their views, their characteristics, and so on, and the moderator should be a facilitator of that. One of our expert advisers said that moderators should be like referees in a match of some kind, not playing on the field but invisible, ensuring that the rules are followed in the time permitted, etc.

Their experience is really important, particularly their credibility with the parties themselves, as well as integrity and trust. It should be someone who's not making a career out of this particular appearance, but sees himself or herself as a facilitator on stage, kind of like a chef d'orchestre who doesn't play any instruments but ensures that the various sections function in some kind of harmony. Perhaps sweet music is not the best analogy for debate, but that's the kind of thing.

I should add that one of the reasons we think it's important that the debates commission continue during the non-election periods is to do thoughtful work on that, and collect the best experience from around the world. What makes for good moderation? What makes for good formats, and so on? Present that in Canada, and put Canada in a position where we really do have a good understanding of how debates work well in an election process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you. One day debates will sound like an orchestra. I can't wait.

Mr. Therrien, you have six minutes.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to welcome our colleagues who have come to meet with us. I am pleased to be asking them questions. I have a lot of questions to ask. Although I can't require it, I would be happy if you would make your answers as short and precise as possible.

If we say the English debate was a fiasco, I don't think any more needs to be said. I could have pulled out articles from serious newspapers, but we won't play that game today. I think there is consensus on the subject. Even my colleagues in the other parties agree. There were too many questions and not enough debate. There were also too many journalists. The emphasis was put on the journalists rather than the politicians, when it should have been the other way around.

I'm going to come back to the form of the debate. I'd like to know who proposed it to you, how you came to authorize it, and then how things proceeded.

[The Right Hon. David Johnston]

That is a key question. Fundamentally, it's a question of the moderators. We had determined that it was very important for the Commission to have final responsibility for choosing the moderators. That meant holding broad consultations. Journalistic independence was then considered in the case of those individuals.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

How is what you're telling me different from the first recommendation?

I want to understand what you did and what change the first recommendation makes. My approach is truly constructive. Everyone knows we are very constructive here.

Madam Chair, we're going to start patting ourselves on the back.

We want to find solutions. A problem arose and I'd like to know how it can be solved.

[The Right Hon. David Johnston]

Mr. Cormier, do you want to answer that question?