Evidence of meeting #25 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was journalists.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Executive Director and Acting Commissioner, Leaders' Debates Commission
Well, in the case of the United States, there is the Commission on Presidential Debates, which organizes the debate. That is not organized by the networks.
Conservative
Executive Director and Acting Commissioner, Leaders' Debates Commission
No. It's funded privately and run by the two main parties, the Republicans and the Democrats.
Other G7 countries, the ones you named, don't have a commission, but there was discussion after the British election to the effect that maybe a commission wouldn't be a bad idea. It was also considered in Australia. That's always a project that's there. Mexico has a full-time commission to run debates. There are other, smaller countries that do that.
As I said, maybe you should take up that question with the minister. I was hired to do the job. I do the job. I can't opine on whether this is warranted or not. That's up to Parliament to decide.
Conservative
Michael Kram Conservative Regina—Wascana, SK
Yes, and that's fair. If you've been hired to do the job, perhaps it's not your place to decide whether the job should exist in the first place, but I was wondering if you've ever studied and made recommendations to the minister about what would happen if the debates commission did not exist in the first place.
Executive Director and Acting Commissioner, Leaders' Debates Commission
Well, we have given a lot of thought to that, because in 2015 I was organizing the debates for Radio-Canada, when there was no national English debate. There were small debates. It was very unstable in terms of the environment. That's why the commission was created, to stabilize the environment.
I think we've managed to do that. Debates now are expected. There is no speculation on whether or not they will happen. They're a kind of fixture of the campaigns. They're becoming an even more important event in the campaign, because we see the ratings go up. We also provide the debate experience to communities that may not be touched by network-run debates, because they wouldn't have access to all of these languages, including in indigenous communities. I think that's very important if you want to grow democracy and access to actual political participation.
These are maybe intangibles in your mind, but I think there are important aspects. I think that's also what drives the commission. Plus, we do study the best practices, and we've improved on what is the best format for debates, which is not a panel of journalists, which was the tradition here and ends up being leaders grilled by journalists. What we prefer is one moderator who encourages debate among the leaders, which is the nature of a political debate in the first place.
I think that is very important, and in this world of misinformation, manipulation and AI, it's one of the few occasions—if not the only one—that people have to see their leaders live, in an unedited fashion, and where they can actually believe what they see on the screen. They see them interact and compare positions with each other.
I think those are the general benefits of having a commission.
Conservative
Michael Kram Conservative Regina—Wascana, SK
Okay. Thank you.
Now that this structure is in place and these best practices are in place, could this all be transitioned to a group of networks and done at no cost to the taxpayers?
Executive Director and Acting Commissioner, Leaders' Debates Commission
I don't think it can be done in this format. As you well know, media organizations have very severe financial problems, given the new environment of advertising. Even in Quebec last time, TVA, which organizes a separate French debate, did not manage to put one on, mainly, according to them, for financial reasons.
I'm not sure that the financial environment is conducive to the transfer you're talking about. As I say, maybe it's a question for Parliament to decide.
Liberal
Jonathan Wilkinson Liberal North Vancouver—Capilano, BC
I just have a couple of questions, and then I may turn it over to my colleague.
You said that it used to cost $1.7 million. It's now down to $1.1 million in terms of putting on the debate. Maybe you could break down for us what the big chunks of cost are in that. Obviously, it's a good thing that it's come down, but what are the big chunks of cost?
Executive Director and Acting Commissioner, Leaders' Debates Commission
The big chunk is the production of the debates, the cost to the networks of putting that on. That's labour and equipment. For example, if you take the debates out of the production facilities of CBC/Radio-Canada and do it here in Ottawa, just the truck that is used to do the production costs $100,000 for a few days' rent. These are big numbers; it's big television. There are manpower, equipment, use of the facilities, organization of the press room, of course, and managing that, producing all the documents, the equipment, the liaison and the relationships with the parties. That's part of the work that we do.
The $1.1million is basically labour, equipment and production costs. That's valid whether it's a sports event or a political event of that nature.
Liberal
Jonathan Wilkinson Liberal North Vancouver—Capilano, BC
I want to flip what Mr. Kram was talking to you about a bit on its head. We did have a period of time when we didn't have this organization. Now we've had it for a number of elections.
If it wasn't in place, if we didn't have the LDC in place, what are the most important things we would lose?
Executive Director and Acting Commissioner, Leaders' Debates Commission
I think you would lose the certainty of a debate. People in our surveys show that they want a debate and that they expect leaders to be at the debates. They think it's important for democracy. This is in the upper 80% to 90% of public opinion. I think you would lose the stability and the predictability of having a debate.
Before, the issue about the debates was whether there would be debates or not. You had to negotiate with the parties, and you had to negotiate with the networks. It was always uncertain, and those are not the best conditions in which to produce a debate.
I think, as I said, that it's growing the democratic footprint by offering the debates for people in languages other than French and English, but also offering the signal, because, you know, the signal of the debates, the feed, is free to anyone who wants to stream it. It doesn't belong to the commission. It doesn't belong to the networks, and this would be different.
This is important in the sense that, in the last election, we had 60 smaller digital media who streamed the debates on their YouTube channels or their other platforms and did programming around that on their platforms. I think it also takes it away from big network production and interpretation of the debate to communities who don't necessarily feel impacted or concerned by the debates.
I'll give you an example. There's a small alternative media outlet in Montreal that does reporting for communities who don't see themselves on the big networks, poorer people and people from different neighbourhoods. They streamed the debates. They had 5,000 people log on to their debates, and they also took questions and did analysis from those people's perspectives.
These are things that would be lost if the commission was not there and that we are hoping to grow even more for the next debate.
Liberal
Jonathan Wilkinson Liberal North Vancouver—Capilano, BC
Thank you.
I'll turn it over to my colleague, Mr. Louis.
Liberal
Tim Louis Liberal Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Maybe we'll dovetail this into the next panel.
You talked about emerging technologies and the future of leaders' debates. How can we enhance engagement with younger audiences, including students and first-time voters, with technology?
Executive Director and Acting Commissioner, Leaders' Debates Commission
Your question is interesting because, for the debates, we were expecting people to leave traditional television and ask for something different, but it's one of these events, like the Super Bowl or like the big media events, where people actually go to the big broadcasters to watch the debates. That has continued. We were expecting a kind of slide toward new, different media consumption habits. It hasn't happened yet, but we're always searching to make sure we understand when this is going to change, in a sense.
As I said, the fact that, for example, we now partner with some of these new media, which cater to different and younger audiences, is a way to do that. We do provide, for after the debates, packages of clips from the debates, so that people can actually consume this in different formats and not just the usual.
For now, the traditional viewing patterns seem to be holding. We'll see if that changes over time.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
Thank you so much.
I'd like to thank Mr. Cormier for appearing before the committee.
We will suspend for about 10 minutes while we flip over to the next panel.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
Welcome back, everyone.
Before we begin with our next panel, we have two supplementary budgets. One is $1,500 for the actions of the longest ballot committee in recent Canadian elections, and the other is $1,000 for challenges regarding special ballot voting.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
Thank you so much.
We'd like to welcome our witnesses on the study of the current state of civic resilience in Canada.
From Apathy is Boring, we have Samantha Reusch, executive director.
As an individual, we have Michael Geist, Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law, University of Ottawa.
From the Quebec Press Council, we have Philippe Marcoux, information and training director.
Each witness will have five minutes to deliver opening remarks.
Ms. Reusch, you're first.
Samantha Reusch Executive Director, Apathy is Boring
Thank you very much.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.
My name is Samantha Reusch. I'm the executive director of Apathy is Boring. For more than 20 years, we've worked to connect young Canadians to our democracy. Our work is non-partisan, national and grounded in a simple belief that young people have an equal stake in how our country is governed.
Last month, as part of our Rise program, we sent 100 curious young volunteers from British Columbia and Alberta all the way to Nova Scotia to do something simple. They went out on the street to ask other young people a question: “How do you feel about Canada's democracy?”
Over two weeks, they spoke with close to 1,000 young Canadians from across the political spectrum. Most conversations were not easy to start. Many of the canvassers told us that people initially found the question confusing or even off-putting. When they dug a little deeper, something interesting happened. Many knew government decisions affected their lives, but they were not sure how those decisions connected to the things that kept them up at night. However, when someone sat with them, listened and asked thoughtful questions, they had strong ideas about fairness, about being heard and about what a system that worked for them could look like.
What we saw in those conversations was not apathy but distance from the system. Democracy's greatest vulnerability is the distance that people feel from the institutions meant to represent them. When that distance grows, people become more vulnerable to ideas that those institutions are illegitimate or not worth protecting. We can measure that vulnerability.
The Privy Council Office's “Trust, Information, and Digital Ecosystem Study”, or TIDES, found that one in four Canadians believes our institutions need to be torn down, 15% of Canadians believe political violence can sometimes be necessary, and 7% say they would personally use force to achieve political goals. These attitudes are most concentrated among younger Canadians, among those experiencing financial stress and among those who rely heavily on social media for information. In other words, the people most exposed to foreign information manipulation and interference, and other actors who also benefit from that distrust, are often the same people who already feel most disconnected from democratic institutions.
If we want to strengthen civic resilience, we have to focus our defences on the people those threats are aimed at. That means closing the distance between people and our institutions, because democratic sovereignty and our ability as Canadians to make decisions about our future through institutions that we trust are being both eroded from the outside and hollowed out from within.
So far, much of our response is focused on institutional security, which is obviously extremely important. However, it will not reach the people who have already stopped believing the institution is worth protecting. What reaches them is exactly what our young canvassers were doing last month—people talking to people and meeting Canadians where they are.
The OECD tells us that Canadians who feel they have a say in what government does are nearly three times more likely to trust it. The fundamentals work. We just have not invested in them. However, our allies are. The European Union is investing billions in democratic infrastructure, and NATO has called on member states to invest in democratic resilience.
In the past few years, Canada has committed $30 million to strengthen democracy abroad. It's time to make that same commitment at home. That is why I'm asking this committee to champion the creation of a Canadian democracy fund with at least $20 million per year for five years, delivered through an arm's-length, non-partisan granting mechanism to the civil society organizations already doing this work and to those that have yet to form. Over time, we believe this investment should grow into a permanent Canadian democracy endowment, providing stable funding for democratic infrastructure that outlasts any single government. More than 130 leaders from across Canada have endorsed this proposal.
This fund would support the civic spaces where Canadians can ask questions to learn how the system works and can find their way into participation. It would help people become stewards of their democracy rather than bystanders to its decline. It's the most direct answer to this committee's study on how to strengthen civic resilience in Canada.
The young people we spoke to last month were not disengaged; they were waiting for an on-ramp. I believe that Canada can be a leader in implementing a whole-of-society approach.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
Thank you so much.
We'll turn now to Professor Geist for five minutes.
Michael Geist Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Thank you, Chair.
Good afternoon. My name is Michael Geist. I'm a law professor at the University of Ottawa, where I hold the Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law. I appear in a personal capacity, representing only my own views.
I'm a law professor who has long believed that the relevance of my research is enhanced by ensuring that it's accessible beyond academia, so that, on policy matters, Canadians can use it to become more actively engaged. That means publishing my research in open access formats, active social media use, regular op-eds and a long-standing podcast. Given that interest, I'm delighted to appear on a study on strengthening social trust and increasing civic engagement.
I'd like to focus on three things in my opening remarks.
First, I think there is an emerging risk for those who actively participate in the public square. Too often, those who speak out run the risk of facing threats, bullying and libellous claims. This can happen on any issue that becomes politicized, which leads to smears or falsehoods designed to undermine or chill that participation. Some of this may just be life in the political arena, but far worse is the hate that certain issues invariably spark. For example, I've been vocal on the issue of the relentless rise of anti-Semitism in Canada. That includes a Globe and Mail piece this week reflecting on the recent synagogue shootings in Toronto. I mention this because whenever I raise the issue, I face an immediate torrent of hate. Some of this comes in direct emails, and some of this is in social media replies that speak of false flags, Holocaust denial or support for genocide.
The chilling effect of this targeted hate is undeniable. We need effective rules on hate speech, but, perhaps even more, we need to ensure that Internet platforms that have pledged to address the issue of awful but lawful speech be held to their word—part of what could constitute a duty to act responsibly.
Second, civil society in Canada is badly underfunded. The area I know best is digital policy, where we have relatively few groups active in the space. Those that are face perpetual funding shortages. This has a huge impact on the quality of evidence before regulators like the CRTC, or on legislation before a committee. Indeed, it creates an imbalanced playing field, where deeper-pocketed interests are able to provide one-sided perspectives with limited counter-evidence.
There is some support—such as the CRTC system for public interest participation, a few grant programs like CIRA's, or the Privacy Commissioner's program—but it's limited, and there is little available for operational funding. By contrast, the U.S. and Europe have a far deeper bench of groups, often supported by a mix of government and charitable foundations. If we're serious about increasing civic engagement, we need to ensure that there is support for the groups that do the engaging.
Third, social trust and engagement are directly correlated to the public perception that one's views and efforts will make a difference. No one should seriously think that a single letter, email or consultation submission will single-handedly sway government policy. However, no one should be left thinking that a consultation or hearing is purely performative and that their submission or the views expressed are of no consequence whatsoever. Unfortunately, too often, this can be what it feels like.
For example, earlier today, the House started the move towards rejecting changes the Senate proposed for Bill C-4 involving a sunset clause on political party privacy rules. I think that largely exempting political parties from the same privacy obligations faced by virtually every other Canadian organization is wrong. For the purpose of public engagement, note that the committee studying the bill refused to hear from any witnesses on the issue and scarcely acknowledged its existence. It devoted literally 30 seconds to this entire part of the bill. You can't encourage engagement by burying provisions in an omnibus bill, acting as if they don't exist and rejecting changes from those who actually studied its impact.
The recent AI consultation is another case in point. Even if we leave aside the 30-day sprint, the exclusion of many voices from the expert group and the use of AI to summarize what Canadians said means that the “what we heard” report we got was actually a “what we want you to think we heard” report, with emphases different from the actual submissions themselves. For those who took the time to participate, it does not inspire confidence.
We have the tools to foster far more public engagement. We have a public that shows real interest in engaging. We need to prioritize making that happen through effective policy, essential support mechanisms and a genuine effort to incorporate the public into the policy process.
I look forward to your questions.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
Thank you so much.
I will now turn to Mr. Marcoux.
Mr. Marcoux, you have the floor for five minutes.