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

[Chris d'Entremont, Liberal, Acadie—Annapolis, NS]

I still have a minute or so. Let's be quick.

In the report, you stated that some stakeholders were calling for maybe two types of debates: one with all leaders and then another one with the front-runners.

I wonder if you could make a couple of comments on how you would try to manage that piece.

[Michel Cormier]

For now, the mandate of the commission is to organize two debates—not two sets of debates, but one French and one English. We've had some consultations, and especially a lot of calls from the public, who would like to have more debates.

In consultations with the parties and with the media and others, we didn't gather there was much enthusiasm for another set of debates, because campaigns are short. If they are for five weeks, two debates would take the best part of a whole week of campaigning.

We have to actually consider these issues, but for now, we don't have the mandate to do this, so it's not on the table.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you so much.

Ms. Normandin, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to come back to my colleague's questions about the need for an active commission between elections.

As you mentioned in response to my questions, there were logistical issues when organizing the last debate. To once again summarize: Mr. Pedneault's invitation was withdrawn, there were issues with the press scrums, the time of the debate was changed at the last minute because of a hockey game and there was a lack of communication with the parties, which is something I want to emphasize because it was raised a lot internally.

From what I understand, the fact that the Leaders' Debates Commission existed all year and the year before the debate was held and the year before that did nothing to prevent these logistical issues. With regard to quality of content, in the past, we have seen that private networks were able to organize quality debates fairly quickly.

I would like to hear your thoughts about what having a commission that is active between elections provides in terms of added value, since it obviously did not change anything logistically speaking and the content could have been just as good had the commission not been active all that time.

In your opinion, would the content have been just as good if the Leaders' Debates Commission had only become active when the election was called?

[Michel Cormier]

I think I have already addressed the added value that I think the commission brings. It does things that private broadcasters may not have the means to do. For example, it makes the debates available in indigenous and other languages and it has a much larger distribution network. The commission has the mandate to ensure that the signal for the debates is available for free to anyone who wants to broadcast them, which extends the reach of these debates. We are also continuing to hold consultations and conduct research on fundamental issues, participation criteria and voter behaviour in order to establish a baseline for defining best practices.

I think that the work the commission does between elections has value. Given that we seem to keep ending up with minority governments, we need to be ready to organize debates as soon as an election is called. That requires the commission to be at least somewhat active between elections. If a majority government were ever elected, then we could come back and discuss this issue.

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

One of the criteria you seem to have used to attest to the quality of the debates is the large number of viewers. However, could this not also be attributed to the controversy surrounding the debate? On the day itself, everything we were seeing in the news was about the cancellations and the fact that the press conferences were not going to be held, and that attracted people's attention.

Couldn't that also have increased viewership?

[Michel Cormier]

I don't know, but stirring up controversy would not be the first thing to come to mind to boost the ratings for the debates.

I think that people are also very concerned about the political issues of the day and that they were really interested in hearing what the party leaders had to say about the fundamental issues affecting them. I think there was a need for information from party leaders.

What is more, this is one of the only opportunities where people are able to hear the leaders answer questions for more than three or four seconds and see them interact with each other directly without it being mediatized, or changed or distorted by platforms or other players. I think that people grab onto these moments, and we are seeing that the debates are becoming increasingly crucial in election campaigns everywhere.

I think that all of that speaks in favour of the presence of a structure that supports the organization of debates.

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

I have one last quick question.

You mentioned that, in your opinion, not holding a press conference after the debate will not cause a democratic deficit. I find that perplexing and it makes me feel uncomfortable because this is the only opportunity for journalists to ask questions of the various party leaders after they have questioned each other. There is no other opportunity for them to do that during the election campaign. Even if there are journalists on the campaign trail with the parties, the questions generally have to do with the announcements of the day. What is more, not all media outlets have the capacity to follow the parties on the campaign trail or to follow all the parties at the same time.

Do you not think that holding a press conference following the leaders' debates provides added value?

[Michel Cormier]

I'll give you that, Ms. Normandin. In a perfect world, I would be in favour of on-site press conferences after the debates. It is clear that the press briefings organized by the parties never manage to attract as many journalists. In a perfect world, I would support this process, but we are in a situation where we do not feel that we are able to guarantee a suitable or sufficiently orderly environment for party leaders' press conferences. It would almost be counterproductive.

It gave us no pleasure to come to that conclusion, and we are also not saying that the media is not losing access to the leaders. They definitely are to some extent. However, when it comes to access to the leaders, I mentioned this reality in light of everything that goes on during the rest of the election campaign.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you so much.

I'd like to thank Mr. Cormier for being here today.

As a reminder to our members, our next meeting will be on Tuesday, December 9, 2025, for our visit of Centre Block. Please meet at the visitor welcome centre at 9 a.m. in West Block.

I shouldn't have to remind you, but please wear long pants. It will be for safety, but it will be cold. The visit is restricted to members of the committee and committee support staff.

Please refrain, if you can, from bringing bags. They'll have to be stored and can't be brought through Centre Block.

That's it. Thank you so much.

The meeting is adjourned.