Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Dec. 4th, 2025

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Okay. Good.

Do I still have a minute?

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

You still have a minute.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Okay.

I'll go to the criteria for deciding who you invite to participate in the debate—which party leaders. You changed the rules mid-course, if my understanding is correct, in the lead-up to the 2025 election debates. Perhaps you could say what was wrong with the old criteria and what's good about the new criteria.

[Michel Cormier]

After the 2021 debates, we did a post-mortem, and we consulted widely on these questions. One thing that came up—and some other people agreed—is that we thought the criteria were too based on the past performance of parties. If you elected one member of a party four years ago or in the last election and you received 4% of the vote, you were in the debates automatically.

We thought we needed criteria that measured the current strength of the parties to make sure there were viable choices for voters in a current election. Instead of having it so that any of the three criteria could get you into the debate, we said you'd need two out of three criteria. If you already have a member in the House, that's one point. If you also have 4% of the vote in polling done at the start of the campaign, you're in; you have two criteria. If you don't have that but have candidates in 90% of the ridings, that's also a sign of organizational strength that will get you into the debate.

You need two out of those three. We thought that this recognized a party's proven ability to elect members, because it's not that easy. It also looked at the current strength of the parties. Combining both, I thought, was the best way of measuring a party's current viability in the campaign.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you so much.

We'll turn to Madame Brière, please.

You have the floor for five minutes.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Mr. Cormier. It is a pleasure to have you with us.

I would like to continue in the same vein. In your opinion, what are the advantages and risks of transferring the responsibility for organizing the post-debate press conference to a third party or even to the political parties?

[Michel Cormier]

A press conference will not be held on site. That is the simplest solution. As for the rest, it will be up to other organizations, that is the political parties, to organize this.

I don’t see any major risks if the journalists covering the election campaign have continual access to the party leaders. I don’t think there is a deficit of democratic expertise here. The leaders will be asked questions the same way as they are every day during the election campaign, at press briefings given by the party leaders.

I don't think this will really change much in terms of the information that is available or in terms of journalists’ access to party leaders.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Are you not concerned that this could compromise transparency, most importantly, or, as you say, journalists' fair access to party leaders?

[Michel Cormier]

As I already said, in a perfect world, I would be happy to continue to organize these press conferences. However, given what happened the last time, we are in a position where the resulting atmosphere is not conducive to press conferences. It is not the right environment for this type of discussion.

We are not happy about having to make that decision, but we think that it is the most reasonable solution given the situation.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Have you looked at other options or did you decide to rule out the idea of holding a press conference from the outset?

Do you have an advisory board? Were there discussions surrounding this decision?

[Michel Cormier]

We consulted our advisory board, but we also put together an ad hoc committee of journalists, journalism association representatives, academic media experts and former journalists who worked in the political arena for a long time. There was no consensus. There were a lot of differing opinions on the subject, but many of these groups supported the idea of the commission no longer organizing these press conferences.

When an issue like this becomes so controversial, it casts a shadow over the debate itself. We want to avoid that. If we could guarantee a suitable environment for broadcasting the press conference, then we would do it, but we do not feel as though we can keep running the risk of things going wrong.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you very much.

In your opening remarks, you said that the leaders' debate is a democratic exercise and that we need to reach as many Canadians as possible. The figures show that a larger number of Canadians watched the debates during the most recent election. What is more, a high percentage of Canadians think that the debates are an important part of the election process.

Part of the Leaders' Debates Commission's mandate involves organizing the debates in both official languages. You held the two debates in more than just the two official languages. You had them interpreted into several indigenous languages and some other languages as well.

We read in the report that Public Services and Procurement Canada covered part of the interpretation costs and that, in the future, the department will be requesting a budget to cover all of these costs.

How can we improve the cost effectiveness and efficiency of multilingual broadcasting?

Can you give us more details about how the 15 languages were chosen?

[Michel Cormier]

We are in the process of verifying whether there are alternatives to using the services of the federal government's translation bureau. Through talks, we have already managed to reduce costs. For example, interpreters from many regions of the country, including the far north, must come to Ottawa to provide interpretation services for the debates. We need to look at whether we now have the technological means to do things differently. That is one thing that we are looking at and that we will discuss with the various stakeholders involved.

As I said, the interpretation services cost a lot of money, but they are very important. We are doing everything we can to reduce spending without affecting the quality of service for voters.

With regard to how we choose the indigenous languages, we consult with indigenous groups to find out the most appropriate languages for which to provide interpretation. We did not make that decision on our own.

Jean Larose, former CEO of the national indigenous broadcaster APTN, is also one of our advisory board members. He has a lot of experience when it comes to broadcasting to indigenous communities across the country. We really depend on indigenous experts when it comes to choosing which languages to interpret. We also consult with CBC/Radio-Canada, the debate producers, which broadcast in indigenous communities.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you so much.

Given that we have lots of time and I've been fairly generous with the timing already, we'll have Madame Normandin for five minutes, please.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

I would like to come back to the matter of the experts.

In the answer you gave my colleague, Mrs. Brière, you said that there was not really a consensus among the experts, except with regard to the idea of the commission no longer being responsible for the press conferences.

Yet, according to the report that you submitted and the excerpt that I read to you, the experts who were consulted said that everything went well, that things all turned out wonderfully. Meanwhile, the day after the debate, the president of the Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec, or FPJQ, someone who could be described as an expert, said that the Leaders' Debates Commission had failed miserably in its task and that the whole thing was a catastrophe that could have been avoided.

Which experts had positive things to say?

[Michel Cormier]

They mainly said positive things about the format and the moderation of the televised debate. They said that things went more smoothly than they had in previous debates.

I will admit that there were problems with regard to the media accreditation and the participation criteria. I don't think what the president of the FPJQ said had to do with the quality of the debates, but rather the leaders' press conferences that followed the debates. I want to make that distinction.

I completely agree with you. I take responsibility and recognize that there were problems, and that is why we are now focusing on resolving those problems before the next debates.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

I want to ask you about costs again because you told me that a large portion of the budget went toward interpretation services. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you said that interpretation costs accounted for about a third of the budget. Given that you had a $3.2‑million budget for the last debate, am I to understand that the interpretation services cost $1 million?

[Michel Cormier]

It cost about $500,000 for interpretation services for the first two debates. However, the budget allocated for production was $1.7 million. This time, because of reduced production costs, the total cost of interpretation was about $1.1 million. We believe that still constitutes an improvement, and we hope to be able to replicate that for future debates.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

I now want to discuss the other portion of the costs.

I understand that in non-election years there are salary-related issues. We are talking about costs of approximately $500,000 to $600,000 a year. The report indicates that this money is used to organize symposiums and best practice exchanges, among other things.

I would like you to tell us about what you heard at the symposiums, the conversations that you had with other people and the best practices that were identified at these events.

[Michel Cormier]

As I said, we conduct post-debate consultations. Then, we continue consultations with experts, such as pollsters and political behaviour experts, who can help guide some of our decisions.

We also participate in discussions with an international organization in Washington called Debates International, which brings together some 30 countries and organizes election debates. All of this is done virtually, and we exchange notes, advice and best practices. Many people around the world hold debates, so we are drawing on the best possible knowledge to continue improving debates here.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Did the issue of organizing press conferences ever come up in those discussions with experts?

Out of curiosity, I would like to know the recommendations that were made by other countries.

[Michel Cormier]

I don't want to be presumptuous, but I can tell you that very few countries, if any, in this group take care of organizing press conferences after the debates. That is a very Canadian way of doing things.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like you to add 15 seconds to my next round of questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Sure.

We'll have Mr. Lawton, please, for five minutes.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Thank you for being here, Mr. Cormier.

The Leaders' Debates Commission was established in 2018. In the last seven years, how many events has the commission hosted?