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.