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

[Michel Cormier]

We do consultations after every election to prepare a report, to propose improvements, usually. We consulted the four parties that were on stage for the debates. We consulted a number of media experts, organizations and associations to deal with the media accreditation question. We have a panel of experts who are some of the best experts in Canada on polling—how to analyze polls and choose polls—and we included them in the discussions. We have our advisory board, which is made up of very prominent Canadians with a lot of experience. We also canvass producers in other countries to see if they have advice on format and stuff like that. All of this is done virtually, by the way, so we canvass very largely.

We have a poll done by the “Canadian Election Study” of thousands of Canadians to make sure that from election to election, we have their opinion on the same themes to see how they evolve. We also did some focus groups in the hours following the debate to get people's fresh impressions about their experience.

It's a very wide canvass, if you like. The idea is to work to improve the debates for next time.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver—Capilano, BC]

Were there any surprises in the feedback?

[Michel Cormier]

I don't recall any surprises. We were all quite familiar, I think, with the issues at hand.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver—Capilano, BC]

The commission's report notes that it was only CBC/Radio-Canada that submitted a request to produce the debates, whereas in previous years, you've had several submissions. Why was that the case?

[Michel Cormier]

We didn't have more than one submission in 2021. The difference is that the group that submitted the request was a group of media organizations led by CBC/Radio-Canada, but it included media like CTV and Global—big TV networks. This time, they were not involved in the application to become producers—only CBC/Radio-Canada was—but they did carry the debates. I think that is a great thing, because now we have evidence that even if people are not part of the group that produces the debates and are not directly involved in their production, there is a lot of interest to broadcast them.

We're also trying to broaden the type and number of media organizations that carry the broadcast, because we have to remind ourselves that this is a free broadcast. Any group or organization can have access to the feed of the debate and stream it on their website. We've had a lot of new, smaller media that talk to communities that don't always feel—I'm trying to find the word—concerned by politics. The fact that these smaller media stream the debates on their websites, have discussions on their websites after that and have thousands of people who may not watch the debate on the main networks come to their trusted local media is a very good sign and is very encouraging for the future.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you so much.

Ms. Normandin, you have six minutes.

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

Mr. Cormier, thank you for being here with us.

I would like to give a bit of a preamble before I ask my questions. I will begin with an excerpt from your report.

The 2025 leaders’ debates were considered the best in decades, with both the format and moderation receiving broad acclaim. The Commission’s post-debate consultations with political parties, experts and other stakeholders reveal widespread approval of the debate format and its moderation.

I would like to contrast this excerpt with other aspects of the debate and with comments that we heard on our side, or what we heard internally in some cases.

With regard to the logistics of organizing the debate, we know that Jonathan Pedneault's invitation was rescinded at the last minute. We know that there was some confusion surrounding the press conferences, including a last-minute cancellation and security issues. We know that the RCMP had to intervene to ensure the safety of the elected officials who were in attendance. There was also a last-minute change in the time because of Hockey Night in Canada. Internally, we heard that communication with the political parties was lacking. We were often informed of changes and of what was happening by journalists rather than by the Leaders' Debates Commission.

Beyond the format of the debate, its content, the moderation and the questions that were asked, if you had to give yourself a score out of 10 for the entire event, including logistics, what would it be?

[Michel Cormier]

I’m not in a position to give a score, but I freely admit that there were issues.

That said, we want to fix those problems. It's true that the three issues you mentioned created a perfect storm, but now we are focusing on finding solutions to those problems. That involves improving communication with the parties and the various stakeholders, because a lot of people are involved.

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

It is all well and good to want to learn from one’s mistakes, but first one has to admit that mistakes were made. You gave a glowing report that talks about how the debates were considered the best in decades and how they had widespread approval from experts and political parties.

Who are these experts?

[Michel Cormier]

In our opinion, the success of the debate is what people saw on television. I think it was a great success in that regard. There is room for improvement. We readily admit that, and we are working on it. There is no doubt about that. I admit that there were problems, and I can assure you that we will do things differently in the future.

We propose solutions to do just that in the report.

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

I would like you to tell us more about the recommendation that the Leaders' Debates Commission should no longer organize the leaders’ press conferences.

Isn’t the organization of these press conferences a part of the Leaders' Debates Commission direct mandate? In terms of public interest, the press conferences are just as important as the debates, if not more so, because the leaders are able to provide more detail on certain issues.

If the Leaders' Debates Commission does not organize those press conferences, isn’t there a risk that several press conferences will be held at the same time and that smaller media outlets will be unable to send journalists to different locations if the press conferences are not all held at one location?

Is it really in the public interest to abdicate your responsibility to organize press conferences?

[Michel Cormier]

First of all, organizing press conferences is not part of the Leaders' Debates Commission's mandate. We agreed to handle them to make sure that they were held.

The problem is that we are not sure we can guarantee a sufficiently orderly environment for party leaders. That is why, after discussing these issues with many experts, journalism associations and political parties, we decided that the best way to ensure that things do not go badly is to no longer organize these press conferences.

The journalists who follow the party leaders on the campaign trail have an opportunity to talk to them every day during press briefings. We believe that this way of doing things takes precedence when the debates are over. That does not mean that there will not be any press conferences. However, the Leaders’ Debates Commission will not be the one organizing them.

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

It seems to me that these press conferences should be part of the debate and that the Leaders' Debates Commission should take care of them. I am also wondering about the amount allocated for organizing a debate. We know that it is just over $3 million in an election year. Perhaps it will be a little less the next time around, but that is still a significant amount of money. TVA was prepared to produce the debate, including the press conference, for $75,000 per party, or $300,000 total, which is 10 times less.

I would like to hear your comments on the relevance of funding an organization that is going to abdicate responsibility for organizing a really important part of these debates.

[Michel Cormier]

I think it is up to the political community, the government and the parties involved to decide whether it is relevant to continue to fund this organization.

With regard to the cost of the debates, it is important to point out that it costs a fair amount of money to put together this kind of program and to take care of everything that goes along with it. We are producing two debates, one in English and one in French. People have to travel. There are also equipment rental costs. These are things that cost a fair amount of money.

We are very pleased to have cut the cost of the debates this year. What is more, we provided simultaneous interpretation in five indigenous languages and other non-official languages. That is something that does not happen in other debates. Interpretation accounts for about a third of the cost of the debates. These are hidden costs, but it is very important that they be included in the organization of these debates because we want to reach as many people as possible and bring these debates to communities that would not otherwise have access to them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you so much.

We will now turn to Mr. Van Popta for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Cormier, for being here with us. Thank you for your testimony so far.

I want to briefly turn back to the media accreditation issue and the post-debate media scrum. I think everybody would agree with you that it did not go well last time. When I first read that your recommendation was for the commission to step away from that and to say that you're no longer going to be responsible for it, my first impression was that it was a bit defeatist: Why didn't you just do the job properly? I understand now that you're also saying that it was never really part of your task anyway.

Why would you have tackled it? Related to that, did the commission organize post-debate scrums in the 2019 and 2021 elections? How did those go?

[Michel Cormier]

Yes, we did organize press conferences for the leaders after. There was not much controversy, even though we had the same kind of situation—media organizations that others objected to and that managed to ask a lot of questions during the press conferences—but this time we had more than 200 journalists, 60 organizations and a huge press room where everything was happening. I think part of what happened, in terms of the tension in the room, was explained by the fact that everything was centred in one single space.

In our consultations, quite a number of people asked us why we were in the business of organizing press conferences that should be left to the campaigns and to the media, so it wasn't just coming from us. There was much reference to it in our consultations.

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

Did you come to the conclusion that it was not part of your mandate after things went wrong? Why did you think it was part of your mandate before?

[Michel Cormier]

We never really considered it to be part of our mandate, but it came with the media accreditation. If we lived in a different world where there was consensus on what journalism is, what a news organization is and what the standards of journalism are, it would be easier, but now we're in a situation where we have a lot of different players that don't agree on the standards of journalism. It creates a very unstable environment in some of these situations. That's unfortunate, but that's the reality.

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

Did you consult with all the parties about whether this should be part of your mandate or whether you did that part of the job well?

[Michel Cormier]

Well, we mentioned it. We canvassed the parties on whether we should continue to do this. Some said yes, some said no and some were indifferent.

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

If you're the commissioner next time, for the next election, you will not organize the post-debate scrum, I take it.

[Michel Cormier]

No, not if I'm commissioner, but I assume that there will be a new commissioner by the time we get there.

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

You never know. We have some votes coming up soon.

[Michel Cormier]

For now, it's a recommendation for the next commissioner.