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.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
12:40 p.m.
Commissioner, Leaders' Debates Commission
Thank you.
Madam Chair, first of all, thank you for suggestions on how one can best manage the process of choosing the production team.
With respect to the specific incident you mentioned, I'm not aware of it being drawn to my attention. I'm not certain whether other of my colleagues have.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
I'm glad that has been shared.
I'm going to go to Mrs. Romanado for five minutes.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
In full disclosure I would also like to mention that the Right Honourable David Johnston was the principal and vice-chancellor of my alma mater as well, but it was McGill University. However, I don't have his name on my diploma.
With that, I would like to thank Mr. Johnston for being here today with his colleagues.
I would like to focus on two questions.
The first, obviously, is with respect to recommendation 2 and the selection of a moderator. I read with great interest the report that you submitted to the minister with respect to the moderation. It indicated very clearly that some felt we should consider having a single moderator for future debates. It said, “A veteran debate organizer remarked that a moderator should have a reputation to lose and not a reputation to build.”
As a Quebec MP and Quebec candidate, I can tell you first-hand how incredibly insulted I was by Ms. Kurl's unacceptable and biased question during the English debates. I think the question she put forward and the assumptions it brought forward were completely unfair.
With respect to that, in your recommendation regarding the selection of a moderator based on expert consultations, could you let us know how far in advance you start the process of looking at moderators or a moderator in preparing for an election? Could you give us a sense of that, please?
12:40 p.m.
Commissioner, Leaders' Debates Commission
In general, should the debates commission be continued, we would, in this interim period leading up to the next election, expect to spend a fair amount of time on that question, gathering the best experience we can. As I have indicated, the choice of a moderator is very key, from all our experience.
We try to reflect that in the consultation we have with those who could be involved in the debates production and in ensuring that we have a transparent process for selecting that moderator when we set out the criteria that we think are essential. Having made that choice, as the election unfolds, we want to be sure we have done the due diligence so that our expectations are really there in terms of the track record.
It involves careful, thoughtful preparation and having a pretty good understanding of what a good moderator is and what a good moderator is not.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
Thank you very much.
With respect to recommendation one regarding the approval of the format and the TV production, you mentioned in your report that “The least important factor for Canadians was the need for debate to 'be exciting.' ” What we're seeing more and more is a sensationalized TV production of a debate, rather than allowing leader candidates to put forward their policy ideas and positions and explain who they are and why they feel they would be the best leader for our country.
You mentioned the RFP going out with respect to selecting a consortium for the TV production of the debates. Could you elaborate a bit on whether or not a future RFP would include a downplaying of the sensationalizing? How would your first recommendation help eliminate some those “gotcha” moments that seem to be what TV producers are looking for, versus what Canadians are looking for when watching those debates?
12:40 p.m.
Commissioner, Leaders' Debates Commission
Madam Chair, there are two answers to those two related questions.
Number one, I was really very heartened in the consultations to see that it wasn't entertainment or knockout blows or worldwide wrestling that one was looking for in these debates. The widespread view of Canadians is they are interested in being able to make good choices about who will make good government leaders and good governments in our country. There is a real, earnest search for that, and debates are an important part of that search. It's our responsibility to provide the public with what they clearly want.
We then get to the question of both moderator and format. What we will do, should we be continued, is make our very best efforts to come to understand what makes for a great debate in the public interest and presents as clearly and as deeply as possible the different positions of the different parties. Second, who are the leaders who are best able to fill that role, and what are the characteristics of their leadership that Canadians should expect?
Out of that, in the consultation we would then do with whoever is chosen as the debates production team, we would try to be sure that we have both a moderator and a format that reflect all of those values that we just spoke of.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
Thank you.
Mr. Therrien, the floor is yours for one minute. You have time to ask a question or make a comment and hear the answer.
12:45 p.m.
Bloc
Alain Therrien Bloc La Prairie, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The mistake made by the moderator shows that there is an accountability problem. I call it a mistake, because I'm being nice.
Who is to blame?
I'm going to read you what the Premier of Quebec said after Ms. Kurl's question.
"The nation of Quebec has been attacked," Mr. Legault told journalists in Quebec, adding that Shachi Kurl and the group of broadcasters that organized the debate had to apologize.
We didn't get any apologies from the consortium or from Ms. Kurl. In fact, she doesn't even know what she should apologize for. So we're a far cry from apologies.
Does Mr. Johnston think Quebeckers deserve an apology?
12:45 p.m.
Commissioner, Leaders' Debates Commission
Madam Chair, I deeply regret the difficulties and problems that this question caused.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
I think the witness has answered the question.
Ms. Idlout now has the floor for two and a half minutes.
12:45 p.m.
Nunavut, NDP
Qujannamiik, iksivautaq.
I appreciated all the passion about the challenges.
I want to ask what I think is a forward-thinking question. As an Inuk myself, and as an indigenous critic within the NDP, I always feel like it's incumbent upon me to ask about the importance of reconciliation and to ensure that we're all doing the best we can to make sure that first nations, Métis and Inuit needs are being met.
I appreciate recommendation seven that you made. I wondered if you would go further to maybe having discussions in the future about ensuring as well that there are indigenous moderators in future debates.
Qujannamiik.
12:45 p.m.
Commissioner, Leaders' Debates Commission
Madam Chair, thank you for that question.
Certainly we will have the inclusivity that is part of Canada as an important part of our discussion, and a diversity in attempting to reflect in the general organization of the debates that full inclusivity.
Second, we are pleased that with respect to the presentation in accessible languages, we've made some very good strides in the last two debates, and we think we can make more.
In this last debate, part of the production team was APTN, who were valuable partners. One of the seven advisers was Jean La Rose, who was CEO of APTN for a number of years and brought great thoughtfulness to our work. We presented the debates in six indigenous languages, and that was important.
Should we be continued, we will be working with the translators in the course of the next months and years, because translation into some of the languages was a challenge. It is a rather attractive opportunity for someone to be chosen for those translations. With more time to work with them, we think we can do an even more effective job in mastering the languages and in working with Heritage Canada to see how other programs to reinforce indigenous languages are very much part of our democratic institutions.
It will certainly be a clear part of our expectations and our work in the years ahead with the Leaders' Debates Commission.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
Excellent. Thank you so much.
I would like to reiterate, on behalf of the committee, our appreciation for the work you are doing. I think you can recognize, with the interest in the questions, that we are concerned and we are appreciative. We look forward to continuing to do that work together. PROC has this mandate as to how we further this conversation, so thank you for making yourself available today.
I hope you and your family are keeping well and safe. It's great to see you here.
As well, to Mr. Cormier and Ms. Ouimet, thank you so much for being with us. Please keep well and safe.
12:50 p.m.
Commissioner, Leaders' Debates Commission
Chair and members of the committee, we are very grateful for the opportunity to be with you, and we are all very grateful to be part of this process.
Democracy matters, debates count, and we will appreciate your advice. With any luck, there will be an opportunity for the Leaders' Debates Commission to be continued and very much guided by your deliberations.
Thank you.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
Excellent.
We will resume with a quick closing of our committee business.
I need to report the main estimates to the House, and I'm asking for consent to group all of the questions together. There are four questions.
Shall votes 1, under House of Commons, Leaders' Debates Commission, Chief Electoral Officer and Parliamentary Protective Service, of the main estimates 2022-23 carry?
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$395,255,315
(Vote 1 agreed to on division)
LEADERS' DEBATES COMMISSION
Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$421,549
(Vote 1 agreed to on division)
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER
Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$49,335,030
(Vote 1 agreed to on division)
PARLIAMENTARY PROTECTIVE SERVICE
Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$89,504,130
(Vote 1 agreed to on division)
Shall I report the main estimates to the House?
12:50 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
While I have 30 seconds, the clerk shared the study budgets for the precinct, and the main estimates. Are we all okay with him proceeding with them?
We are. Excellent. Thank you.
Keep well and safe, everyone. We will see you next week.
The meeting is adjourned.