You're welcome.
Evidence of meeting #21 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was debate.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #21 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was debate.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
So I'm going to deduct one minute from Mr. Therrien's next turn.
Ms. Idlout, the floor is yours for six minutes.
12:25 p.m.
Nunavut, NDP
Qujannamiik, iksivautaq.
Thank you so much to the witnesses and to the Right Honourable David Johnston.
I want to thank you particularly for your time as Governor General. I really enjoyed your service and how you highlighted hockey. As a hockey player myself, you really inspired me to continue to want to play, even as I got older, so I thank you for that.
I want to ask about the report. Throughout the whole report, the word “stakeholders” is used quite often. I've looked at appendix 3. There's quite a long list of stakeholders here. There are seven groups of different stakeholders.
I think political parties are particularly important as stakeholders. When you're referencing recommendations made by stakeholders, can you describe to us how much of the political parties' engagement would agree with some of those recommendations, based on what you've heard? The sense that I get from the parties is that they didn't feel heard by the commission. What did you do to make sure they felt heard?
12:25 p.m.
Commissioner, Leaders' Debates Commission
Thank you, Madam Chair, and through you to the member.
We worked very hard at consultation generally with stakeholders, and in particular with political parties or people who had political experience. Our advisory board, made up of seven people, was mandated to choose people who reflected the diversity of the country and gender neutrality, but in particular individuals who had direct political experience. Three of those—John Manley, Deborah Grey and Megan Leslie—have had long-standing experience in this body. The other four were people who also certainly had interest in, and some experience in, political activity, etc. We profited greatly from that.
Second, we undertook quite direct consultations with each of the parties—the party leaders or the party association presidents—on a number of questions, including who should be on the debate stage. We continued that consultation both before and after the debates.
Our own sense in those discussions with the parties was that they were actually quite satisfied with the degree of consultation. The findings of the Canadian election studies group was that there was a good rapport with the parties. We were careful not to simply take their suggestions and say “That's it” to one or the other. We carefully filtered them through others.
It was by no means perfect, and one can improve on it, but I think our sense was that the rapport with the parties was certainly substantially more involved in the fundamental issues than had been the case when a commission was not present to do that. The negotiations between the parties and the debates producers sometimes produced results that were not as good, including the failure to have an English debate in 2015.
12:30 p.m.
Nunavut, NDP
Qujannamiik.
I also want to ask about the funds, and specifically the area called “Contract for incremental costs for debate production”. I do see that there had been an RFP for a debate production and that reimbursements needed to be made. I wondered how that contracting procedure worked.
Given the kind of feedback you have received, it seemed that some of the contract obligations may not have been met, leading to some of the recommendations that are made by the commission to make improvements so that, for example, the moderators and the journalists aren't just promoting themselves and that this is actually a public process to ensure that more Canadians learn about who the leaders actually are.
12:30 p.m.
Commissioner, Leaders' Debates Commission
Madam Chair, through you to the member, there are two questions there, really.
One is on the specifics of contracts. I'm not aware of any criticism of any of those contracts and their allocation. We try to be very careful to abide by all Treasury Board rules. I have not heard of any specific criticism about those, so I think we feel confident that those are more than simply in order but fulfill all of the requirements you would expect.
There are a few that are still incomplete. The debates production group still have one or two items that will be presented to us, but that will be within their overall contract.
I think with respect to the other question of reach, maybe you can just state it again so I get it very clearly.
12:30 p.m.
Nunavut, NDP
The feedback, for example, is that there were huge issues with the format and with the moderator, in that it seemed that the journalists were raising their own platforms as opposed to ensuring that it was the leaders' platforms that came forward. Those seem to go against what would go into a contract under the debate production. How could you make sure that these journalists weren't raising their own profiles when it should have been a focus of ensuring that Canadians were learning more about the leaders?
12:30 p.m.
Commissioner, Leaders' Debates Commission
Madam Chair, through you to the member, there was substantial criticism about some aspects of both the moderation and the format, and that's why we are recommending that the commission have ultimate responsibility for both the choice of the moderator and the format, but in very close collaboration with the debates production group, particularly if they were chosen earlier than that, and also in very close collaboration with other people who've had experience in what's a good moderator and what's a good format.
Also, in taking advantage of the international experience, particularly the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany would have had extensive consultation, and the Australians are going through this at the present time. We think we can do a better job on that and would be prepared to work very hard at it between now and the next election to try to be sure that we're as well informed as we can be.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
We look forward to that as well. Thank you.
We will now have five minutes with Mr. Warkentin, five minutes with Mrs. Romanado, one minute for Mr. Therrien and two and a half minutes for Ms. Idlout.
Go ahead, Mr. Warkentin.
12:35 p.m.
Chris Warkentin Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, CPC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to the commissioner and the commissioner's staff. I do appreciate the work you do.
I don't support the creation of the commission, but I do appreciate that the commissioner has taken up this role. I know it's a difficult role, and we appreciate your work on it. I can tell you that I've never seen a good debate with multiple candidates. I think there are always problems with it, so I have some sympathy for the process.
However, I just want to be clear on this. Did you say that CBC/Radio-Canada was the producer of the last debate?
12:35 p.m.
Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, CPC
Was CBC/Radio-Canada the producer of the last debate?
12:35 p.m.
Commissioner, Leaders' Debates Commission
Madam Chair, CBC/Radio-Canada were the lead in a group of 35 different television stations.
Let me give a precise answer to that question. The debates broadcast group was a partnership of 10 news organizations, with the CBC/Radio-Canada acting on behalf of the consortium which produced the two debates, and that's why the money actually went through CBC.
12:35 p.m.
Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, CPC
Through the chair, my understanding is, then, that CBC led the discussions with regard to the editorial decisions and the moderation, as well as the format of the debate. Those seem to be the criticisms that you as a commission have received with regard to the last debate. Are you saying that CBC/Radio-Canada led the production team that was responsible for all those decisions?
12:35 p.m.
Commissioner, Leaders' Debates Commission
Madam Chair, through you, “led” would be a word to say that it kind of organized a group to come to a consensus on what was involved. That group included media organizations like APTN, CBC, CTV, Global,
Radio-Canada, Noovo, the Coopérative nationale de l'information indépendante, the Coops de l’information, L'Actualité, La Presse, and Le Devoir.
It was out of that collectivity that the decision —
12:35 p.m.
Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, CPC
I'm sorry. Were you not finished? I do apologize.
12:35 p.m.
Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, CPC
I have very little time.
Again, through the chair, I just want to be clear. How were these participants paid? Was it a direct allocation to each one of them? Was it given to CBC to allocate that money according to their discretion? How did that work?
12:35 p.m.
Commissioner, Leaders' Debates Commission
The public broadcaster managed the contract, which had a contractual commitment of up to two million dollars, and the debate production then fell below that to just over $1.7 million, but what happened was that in the request for proposals there was a clear set-out as to what costs would be covered in what way. As things proceeded, payments were made within that consortium for the expenses incurred.
12:35 p.m.
Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, CPC
CBC itself, as an organization, will become a subject of debate in an election process. It has happened in the past, and I suspect it will occur increasingly as it becomes more difficult to comprehend exactly what role the CBC plays for society in our new modern media.
My question is this: Would the commission be prepared to eliminate groups that were subject to debate from the process of editorial decision-making, moderator selection and all other processes with regard to the debate?
12:35 p.m.
Commissioner, Leaders' Debates Commission
First of all, the debates production team was chosen in a public tender process with a request for proposals. The proposals came in, and we made the judgment and looked at parts of that.
Going forward, we expect we will use the same kind of process, but we will begin it earlier and have much more intensive consultations with whoever is chosen as the debates production team.
12:35 p.m.
Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, CPC
I can't speak on behalf of the party, but through the chair, I would just suggest that I would have some reservation about the neutrality of the commission or its absence of bias if in fact the CBC led that process in the future.
I can tell you that I believe there needs to be a public debate with regard to the future of the CBC, which received billions of dollars from the taxpayer on an ongoing basis in between elections. I believe that they have the possibility of at least an appearance of bias if parties take differential opinions in terms of their future and how that may roll out.
I know you heard this, because I heard from folks who also sent the commission concerns about the moderator from CBC who appeared in a selfie with Justin Trudeau. That was known to the commission before the selection of that individual. Was there any concern? Was that ever raised by members of the staff at the commission about Rosemary Barton—I will name her—being selected as that person, having tweeted out a picture of her and Justin Trudeau prior to that?