On November 2, 2017, pursuant to its mandate under Standing Order 108(3)(a)(vi), the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs (“the Committee”) concurred in the Eighth Report from the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure and agreed to commence a study on the creation of an independent commissioner to organize political party leaders' debates during future federal election campaigns.[1]

On November 21, the Committee began its study by hearing testimony from the Hon. Karina Gould, Minister of Democratic Institutions. Over the course of eight subsequent meetings, the Committee heard from 33 witnesses (see Appendix A) and received written submissions from political parties and interested individuals. The Committee thanks all those who participated in this study for their important and thoughtful contributions.

The Committee is pleased to report as follows:

BACKGROUND

i.    Historical overview of televised federal party leaders’ debates

Canada’s first televised federal party leaders’ debate took place during the 1968 general federal election campaign. This bilingual debate occurred on June 9, 1968, just over two weeks before Election Day on June 25, 1968.

The debate was held in Parliament's West Block.[2] The debate lasted two hours, and the participants for its duration were Mr. Tommy Douglas of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, the Hon. Robert Stanfield of the Progressive Conservative Party, and the Rt. Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau of the Liberal Party of Canada. Mr. Réal Caouette of the Social Credit Party also participated in the debate but only for the last 45 minutes.[3]

The 1968 federal party leaders’ debate was jointly broadcast on television by CBC/Radio-Canada and CTV, and could also be heard on short-wave radio broadcast by the CBC and the British Broadcasting Corporation.[4] Canada’s population at the time was about 20 million people,[5] and newspaper reports prior to the debate noted that the Canadian audience was expected to be as large as 14 to 15 million people.[6] As broadcasting of the proceedings of Canada’s House of Commons did not begin until 1977, the 1968 debates presented an opportunity to watch interactions between national party leaders.

Following this initial federal party leaders’ debate, no such debates were held during either the 1972 or 1974 general elections. Likewise, no debate was held during the 1980 general election. The table below provides information on the 12 general elections held between 1968 and 2015 in which there was at least one party leaders’ debate.

Table 1: Past televised federal party leaders’ debates in Canada (1968 to 2015)

General Election	Election Day	Date of Debate(s)	Number of Debates and Broadcasters	Debate Participants
28th	June 25, 1968	June 9, 1968	One: bilingual carried on CBC, CTV and Radio‑Canada[7]	Réal Caouette (Social Credit Party); Tommy Douglas (Co‑operative Commonwealth Federation); Robert Stanfield (Progressive Conservative Party); and Pierre Elliott Trudeau (Liberal Party of Canada).
	Notes:
	Mr. Caouette was only invited to participate in the last 45 minutes of the debate.
31st	May 22, 1979	May 13, 1979	One: in English and carried on CBC, CTV and Global[8]	Ed Broadbent (New Democratic Party); ·Joe Clark (PC); and Pierre Elliott Trudeau (LIB).
	Notes:
	The Social Credit Party, which took six seats in the 1979 general election, was not invited to participate in the debate.
33rd	September 4, 1984	French: July 24, 1984; English: July 25, 1984; and bilingual: August 15, 1984	Three: French debate carried on Radio‑Canada and TVA; English debate carried on CBC, CTV and Global; and the broadcasters of the bilingual debate could not be found.	Ed Broadbent (NDP); Brian Mulroney (PC); and John Turner (LIB).
	Notes:
	The bilingual debate had a theme: women’s issues
34th	November 21, 1988	French: October 24, 1988; and English: October 25, 1988	Two: French debate carried on Radio‑Canada and TVA; and English debate carried on CBC, CTV and Global.[9]	Ed Broadbent (NDP); Brian Mulroney (PC); and John Turner (LIB).
	Notes:
	An estimated six million Canadians watched the English language debate and just under two million watched the French language debate.[10]
35th	October 25, 1993	French: October 3, 1993; and English: October 4, 1993.	Two:[11] English debate carried on CBC, CTV and Global;[12] and French debate carried on at least Radio-Canada.[13]	Lucien Bouchard (Bloc Québécois); Kim Campbell (PC); Jean Chrétien (LIB); Preston Manning (Reform); and Audrey McLaughlin (NDP).
	Notes:
	During the French language debates, Mr. Manning restricted his participation to making opening and closing statements through an interpreter. Leaders of the Canada Party, Christian Heritage party, Green Party Libertarian Party, Marxist‑Leninist Party, Natural Law Party and the Party for the Commonwealth of Canada held a debate in Ottawa, televised on CBC Newsworld on October 5, 1993.[14] The format of at least the English debate provided for questions from audience members for the first time.[15]
36th	June 2, 1997	English: May 12, 1997; and French: May 13, 1997	Two: English debate carried on CBC, CTV and Global; and French debate carried on Radio‑Canada and TVA.[16]	Jean Charest (PC); ; Jean Chrétien (LIB); Gilles Duceppe (Bloc); Alexa McDonough (NDP); and Preston Manning (Reform).
	Notes:
	The English debate was divided into five thematic segments: jobs, health care and social programs, the economy, national unity, and how well Parliament serves Canadians. The French debate had four thematic segments: unemployment, the economy and quality of life, the role of government, and the future of minorities.
37th	November 27, 2000	French: November 8, 2000; and English: November 9, 2000.	Two: English debate carried on CBC, CTV and Global; and French debate carried on Radio‑Canada and TVA.[17]	Jean Chrétien (LIB); Joe Clark (PC); Stockwell Day (Canadian Alliance); Gilles Duceppe (Bloc); and Alexa McDonough (NDP).
	Notes:
	The English debate was divided into four thematic segments: the future of Canada’s public health care system, government finances, leadership and the political future, justice and society, and the role of government. The French debate had four thematic segments: Canada’s health system, public finances, leadership and the political future, justice in our society, and the role of government.
38th	June 28, 2004	French: June 14, 2004; and English: June 15, 2004.	Two: English debate carried on CBC, CTV and Global; and French debate carried on Radio‑Canada and TVA.[18]	Gilles Duceppe (Bloc); Stephen Harper (Conservative Party of Canada); Jack Layton (NDP); and Paul Martin (LIB).
38th	Notes:
	The English debate was once again divided into four thematic segments. The English debate also included a series of short one-on-one debates held between party leaders during each thematic segment. The French debate had four thematic segments: Canada’s health system, public finances, leadership and the political future, justice in our society, and the role of government.
39th	January 23, 2006	French: December 15, 2005 and January 10, 2006; and English: December 16, 2005 and January 9, 2006.	Four: English debate carried on CBC, CTV and Global; and French debate carried on Radio‑Canada and TVA.[19]	Gilles Duceppe (Bloc); Stephen Harper (Conservative Party of Canada); Jack Layton (NDP); and Paul Martin (LIB).
	Notes:
	The English debate in December 2005 featured only questions submitted by the public and selected by the broadcasters. Over 10,000 questions were submitted. The January debate featured only questions crafted by the broadcasters. The French debate in December 2005 also featured only questions submitted by the public, while the January 2006 debate featured only questions crafted by the broadcasters.
40th	October 14, 2008	French: October 1, 2008; and English: October 2, 2008	Two: English debate carried on CBC, CTV and Global; and French debate carried on Radio‑Canada and TVA.[20]	Stéphane Dion (LIB); Gilles Duceppe (Bloc); Stephen Harper (CPC); Jack Layton (NDP); and Elizabeth May (Green Party of Canada).
40th	Notes:
	For the English debate, leaders debated eight questions that were selected from over 45,000 questions submitted by the public. The questions were video recorded and played during the debate.[21]
41st	May 2, 2011	English: April 12, 2011; and French: April 13, 2011	Two: English debate carried on CBC, CTV and Global; and French debate carried on Radio‑Canada and TVA.[22]	Gilles Duceppe (Bloc); Stephen Harper (CPC); Michael Ignatieff (LIB); and Jack Layton (NDP).
	Notes:
	The format of both the English and French debates featured questions selected from public submissions. Leaders debated topics for a short period one-on-one, after which a four person debate was held on the topic.
42nd	October 19, 2015	English: August 6, 2015, September 17, 2015 and September 28, 2015 French: September 24, 2015 and October 2, 2015	Five:  all five debates were carried on CPAC. The debate held on September 24, 2015 was carried on CBC, CTV, Global Radio Canada and Télé-Québec. The debate held on October 2, 2015 was carried on TVA.	6 August: Stephen Harper (CPC); Elizabeth May (Green); Thomas Mulcair (NDP); and Justin Trudeau (LIB) 17 September: Stephen Harper (CPC); Thomas Mulcair (NDP); and Justin Trudeau (LIB) September 24: Gilles Duceppe (Bloc); Stephen Harper (CPC); Elizabeth May (Green); Thomas Mulcair (NDP); and Justin Trudeau (LIB) 28 September: Stephen Harper (CPC); Thomas Mulcair (NDP); and Justin Trudeau (LIB)
42nd				2 October: Gilles Duceppe (Bloc); Stephen Harper (CPC); Thomas Mulcair (NDP); and Justin Trudeau (LIB)
	Notes:
	The debate held on 6 August was hosted by Maclean’s and had four topics: the economy; energy and the environment; the state of Canada’s democracy; and foreign policy and security. The debate held on 17 September was hosted by the Globe and Mail and its theme was the economy. The debate held on 24 September had five topics: governmental services for Canadians; the economy; governance, democracy and institutions; the environment; and Canada’s place in the world. The debate held on 28 September was hosted by Munk Debates and its theme was foreign policy. The debate held on 2 October had three topics: the economy and public finances; security and Canada’s place in the world; and social policy and governance for Canadians.

Source:     Table prepared by the author using numerous sources; consult footnotes.

ii.   Organization and legal framework of debates

In Canada, federal party leaders’ debates are not subject to any provisions of the Canada Elections Act[23] (CEA). All previous party leaders’ debates have occurred during the election campaign period. While numerous elements of campaigns and the electoral process are regulated by the CEA, it does not create any legal obligations related to debates for political parties, candidates and/or third parties.

Under the Broadcasting Act[24] and its regulations, the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), the independent public authority responsible for regulating and supervising broadcasting and telecommunications in Canada, has issued a policy that requires broadcasters to cover election campaigns and give all candidates, parties and issues equitable treatment. This policy states, however, that “equitable does not mean equal.”[25]

Specifically, with respect to party leaders’ debates, the CRTC policy states that “debate programs do not have to include all parties or candidates.”[26] Rather, broadcasters must ensure that “in general, they are informing their audiences on the positions of candidates and parties on the main issues in a reasonable manner.”[27]

During past elections, party leaders’ debates have been organized through negotiations between political parties and television broadcasters, along with other media organizations. These negotiations dealt with, among other things:

• Which party leaders would participate?
• How many debates would be held?
• When and where the debates would be held?
• What the format would be for each debate, including who would be the moderator?
• What media organization(s) would broadcast each debate?
• How the cost of each debate would be paid?

With the exception of the 2015 general election, during past general elections various news organizations[28] worked together to negotiate terms with political parties and to collectively broadcast the debates. Over time, this ad hoc group of English and French language broadcasters was dubbed the “broadcasting consortium.” The Committee heard from broadcasters that have participated in the consortium that while they were competitors, they nonetheless opted to work together to collectively broadcast party leaders’ debates because:

• political parties did not want to participate in multiple debates;
• the individual broadcasters did not want to be pitted against one another for the right to hold a debate; and
• they wanted to reach as large an audience as possible when a debate is held.[29]

iii.       Role of federal party leaders’ debates in Canada

During its study, witnesses who appeared before the Committee ascribed a variety of attributes to federal party leaders’ debates. Witnesses said the debates:

• form part of the tradition of election campaigns and are important events for the public to understand their choices;[30]
• serve an education function and help cultivate citizenship;[31]
• provide for meaningful public engagement and deliberation;[32]
• provide unmediated access to party leaders;[33]
• let citizens understand party policies and come to a judgment on the character of leaders;[34]
• allow the public to compare and evaluate the ideas and performance of party leaders;[35]
• provide important information to citizens for only a modest expenditure of effort;[36]
• give undecided voters an opportunity to compare the positions of the main political parties on key issues for society; and [37]
• provide party leaders with a unique opportunity to reach out to and connect with a large portion of the electorate in both official languages.[38]

However, several witnesses also asked the Committee to consider the interplay between a debate’s education function and its entertainment value. The Committee heard that while debates do serve a civic education function, some witnesses considered them to be essentially media spectacles.[39] Furthermore, some witnesses stated that the debates can place excessive focus on party leaders[40] and that this could distort the public’s understanding of the functioning of Canada’s electoral system and the way citizens elect their representatives.

iv.  Recent federal party leaders' debates

When party leaders’ debates have been held during general elections, all matters related to a given debate have been decided through negotiations involving political parties and news/host organizations. The Committee was told by media organizations that have participated in organizing leaders’ debates, that during such negotiations, political parties invited to participate in a leaders’ debate often attempt to gain terms that each considers the most favourable, and will at times employ the threat of withholding their participation in order to gain more favourable terms.[41]

During 2015 general election, only one of out of the five leaders’ debates held was organized by the broadcasting consortium.[42] This made the 2015 election the first in which a debate (in this case, four debates) was organized by an entity that was not a partner to a larger broadcasting consortium. Some witnesses and Committee members stated the reason for this change was that the Conservative Party of Canada declined to participate in an English-language debate organized by the broadcasting consortium.[43]

In place of having all debates organized by a consortium, a broad range of media organizations organized five party leaders’ debates during the 2015 election campaign, two of which had themes (“Economy” and “Foreign Affairs”). The dates, formats and participants in the 2015 debates were negotiated between the host organizations and participating political parties.

Over the course of the Committee’s study, a number of comparisons were drawn by witnesses between the 2011 and 2015 leaders’ debates. The Committee heard that the combined television and digital viewership for the 2015 leaders’ debates was around 10 million Canadians.[44] Furthermore, the Committee was provided with information on the expansive digital reach that digital-first media entities have in Canada. For example, in 2017, there were 30 million Canadian internet users and 29.3 million Canadian mobile device users; and in 2016, Canadians between the ages of 18 to 34 spent an average of five hours per day on the internet.[45]

Regarding the 2011 leaders’ debates, the Committee heard that the English-language debate reached over 10 million Canadians, while four million Canadians watched the French-language debate.[46] In comparing the 2011 and 2015 debates, the Committee was told that in 2015 only “a fraction of Canadians were reached when you compare the audience numbers with those of 2011;”[47] in another instance, the Committee heard that the viewership of the 2015 debates was “alarmingly low.”[48]

In discussing lessons learned from broadcasting the 2011 and 2015 leaders’ debates, witnesses told the Committee that the options made available to Canadians for receiving their media information was rapidly evolving. This has a number of potential implications in relation to the Committee’s study, including that advertising information about the debates and debate content should be accessible on multiple media platforms and be readily accessible to individuals both during the live broadcast and at times they consider convenient.

Furthermore, the Committee heard that the Canadian viewing audience has become increasingly fragmented. Some posited that this fragmentation added importance to the leaders’ debates as a shared unifying experience among a critical mass of voters, especially when the debates were broadcasted by the major television networks.[49] Others emphasized that media organizations need to provide the debates to the public using a diversity of media formats in order to reach different audiences.[50]

Overall, a key theme that emerged from witnesses in their evaluation of the 2011 and 2015 election debates was that emphasis needed to be placed on putting the Canadian public's interests first. This leads the Committee to believe that an important goal of its present study is to examine options for how federal party leaders’ debates can be organized so that future debates can readily be accessed by as many Canadians as possible across a multiplicity of media platforms.

v.   Exploring changes to how federal leaders’ debates are organized in Canada

Having reviewed the history of federal party leaders’ debates in Canada and examined the role that the debates have assumed, over time during election campaigns, a key question that emerged for the Committee was whether federal party leaders’ debates could be considered a public good?

Specifically, should the organization of all aspects of the leaders’ debates be left to the discretion of media/host entities and political participants, as is the current case, or should some or all aspects of leaders’ debates be made subject to some type of more formal process, oversight entity and/or guiding framework?

During its study, those witnesses and interested parties who addressed the matter of whether leaders’ debates could be considered a public good raised the point that numerous other aspects of the functioning of federal election campaigns in Canada have already been made subject to formal regulation. In their view, providing some formality to leaders’ debates would be consistent with Canada’s electoral framework. Similarly, the Executive Director of the U.S. Commission on Presidential Debates expressed the view that the presidential debates in the U.S. were the last campaign event that belonged solely to the public.[51]

The Committee only heard testimony and written submissions to the effect that the current manner by which party leaders’ debates have been organized and broadcast could benefit from an examination by Parliament, with a view of seeking improvements to the debate organizing process and/or product.

At the same time, a number of witnesses struck a cautionary tone in suggesting reforms. The Committee heard the concern that the creation of an entity responsible for aiding in organizing leaders’ debates could lead to innovation being stifled or inhibited.[52] Such an entity, according to one witness, ought to operate with a light touch and maintain organizational independence from debate participants.[53] One witness stated that while Parliament had a legitimate right to study proposing reforms to leaders' debates, it was difficult to envisage what changes could be made to improve the status quo.[54] Along the same lines, many witnesses spoke in favour of distinguishing between those aspects of the leaders' debates that offered the potential for improvement through formalization and those that should be left flexible and subject to negotiation between debate stakeholders.

In the following section of this report, the Committee will present its findings about changes that could be made in order to ensure that future leaders' debates reflect the public's interests and are broadly accessible. These findings are based on the various viewpoints and recommendations about reforming federal party leaders’ debates made by witnesses appearing before the Committee and through written submissions to the Committee.

DISCUSSION

A.   Mandate of an entity responsible for organizing federal party leaders’ debates

In contemplating the merits of putting in place an entity responsible for organizing federal party leaders’ debates, a natural starting point for the Committee was to gather views about the objectives and principles that would guide such a structure. The Committee frequently heard during its study that leaders’ debates should place the interests of citizens first, as they are the key participants in Canada’s democratic process.[55]

In broader terms, the Committee was told that, in order for the debates to be considered as neutral and fair, they should be organized and delivered to the public in a way that provides predictability, participation, and partnership.[56] Regarding predictability, citizens would benefit from knowing if there is going to be a debate, what media platforms will carry it, when is it going to take place and where. Regarding participation, the Committee was told it would be desirable for clear criteria to be established for determining which parties may participate in a debate. And regarding partnership, it was important to consider how media organizations could be engaged to cooperate to ensure that the debates are made as widely available as possible to all Canadians.

The following is a list of further principles and objectives that witnesses suggested an entity responsible for organizing leaders’ debates should be guided by:

Independent and neutral: The entity should abide by the principles of fairness, non-partisanship and transparency.[57] It should strive to establish itself as a trusted resource by participants and prove itself capable of producing a professional product.[58]

Educational:[59] The entity should be credible.[60] It should seek to ensure debates occur in a way that is respectful, dignified, and substantive,[61] and that they inform the electorate of the range of political options they have to choose from.[62] It should also ensure the debates provide information to citizens and facilitate their election decisions.[63]

Open and transparent: The entity should ensure that decisions about the debates reflect the broadest public interest and be transparent and open to public engagement.[64]

Flexible: The entity should be flexible in its role[65] and be light, adaptable and agile in structure.[66]

Accessible and inclusive: The entity should make certain that the debates are made broadly accessible to the public;[67] that the official language rights of Canadians are respected; and that the debates are made accessible and inclusive to all Canadians, including, but not limited to, persons with disabilities, youth, women and Indigenous people.[68]

The committee believes that debates are a public good and recommends:

Recommendation 1

That the government should proceed with establishing a new entity to organize leaders’ debates during federal elections and that entity should be established in time to organize debates during the 2019 federal general election;

That this new entity must be created in such a way to ensure its independence and neutrality;

That the new entity be mandated to educate Canadians about how debates are organized, when debates are occurring, and how Canadians can experience the debates.

B.   Establishing an entity responsible for organizing federal party leaders’ debates

On the question of whether an entity responsible for organizing federal party leaders’ debates should be established, witnesses and those submitting briefs either expressed no opinion or gave their views about the role such an entity could play.

Among those who favoured establishing an entity responsible for organizing at least some aspects of the federal party leaders’ debates, three options were frequently mentioned. These were:

• creating a new independent leaders’ debates facilitator or commissioner;
• creating a new leaders’ commissioner or commission that would be housed within Elections Canada but would operate independently of Elections Canada and the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO); and
• assigning the responsibility of organizing the leaders’ debates to the Broadcasting Arbitrator, a position that currently exists under section 332(1) of the CEA.

In general, most witnesses did not favour creating a large commission. Rather than creating an unwieldy decision-making entity, witnesses tended to favour a light and agile entity, one that could consist of as few as one person. For example, the Committee heard that the office of the U.S. Commission on Presidential Debates consists most of the time of an Executive Director and an assistant.[69] Furthermore, an organizing entity would need to be independent of the media and political parties in order to limit the incursion of strategic and business interests on the democratic role of debates.[70] The debates commissions in both Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago require their commissioners to adhere to a code of conduct that prohibits partisan activities.[71] A new independent debate organizing entity could, instead, seek advice and receive input and feedback from an advisory panel of debate participant stakeholders that it could convene from time to time.

The establishment of an advisory panel composed of a diverse set of representatives was suggested by several witnesses. Appointments to the panel should be done using a formula that prevents partisanship.[72] Membership on this panel could include:[73]

• broadcasters and media organizations;
• representatives of political parties;
• representatives of new media;
• representatives of groups with disabilities;
• citizens;
• civil society groups;
• representatives of universities; and
• other experts.

A representative of the Canadian Association of the Deaf proposed that an accessibility advisory committee be established to advise the independent debate organizing entity, to ensure that the implementation of access services is being planned well in advance.[74] Similarly, in a written submission to the Committee, the Green Party of Canada suggested that an advisory broadcasting panel be formed to provide the debate organizing entity with expertise and capacity on running debates.

The following section explains how a new leaders’ debates facilitator or commissioner could be created through either a legislative or a non-legislative process and provides information on the role of the Broadcasting Arbitrator under the CEA.

i.    Federal party leaders’ debates facilitator or commissioner

Creating a role for an individual or small entity to be responsible for organizing leaders’ debates could be accomplished through a legislative or non-legislative process.

A non-statutory entity could be created in a number of ways. In her appearance before the Committee, Minister Gould indicated that a non-legislative option for establishing an independent debate organizing entity could be through criteria created under government transfer payments known as grants and contributions.[75]

Both grants and contributions are funding mechanisms that are subject to approval by a vote in Parliament. A grant is an unconditional transfer payment. To receive a grant, the applicant must meet pre-established eligibility requirements. These criteria assure that the grant objectives will be met. An individual or organization that meets the eligibility criteria for a grant can usually receive the payment without having to meet any further conditions. Grants are not subject to being accounted for or audited.[76]

A contribution is a conditional transfer payment. For each contribution, specific terms and conditions must be met by the recipient before payment is given by the governmental department. Contributions, unlike grants, are subject to performance conditions that are specified in a contribution agreement. Prior to receiving a contribution, the recipient must provide a performance measurement strategy; performance indicators and targets; and internal audit and evaluation strategies. Furthermore, the government can audit the recipient’s use of a contribution.[77]

To create a statutory body responsible for organizing leaders’ debates, legislation would need to go through the federal legislative process. Examples of independent oversight and/or administrative bodies with their powers and mandate established by statute include officers of Parliament, such as the CEO, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the Information Commissioner.

In general terms, officers of Parliament carry out duties assigned to them by statute, report directly to one or both chambers of Parliament and not to a minister, and exercise independence from the government of the day. Statutory officers of Parliament are also usually Governor in Council appointments, usually involving consultation with recognized parties of either or both the Senate and the House of Commons and made after approval of the appointment by resolution of the Senate and/or the House of Commons.

Some witnesses spoke in favour of establishing a debates commissioner who would have the independence and broad support of political parties and comparisons were drawn with the support from political parties required to be an officer of Parliament.[78]

ii.   Broadcasting Arbitrator

The Committee heard that, should it recommend that an independent debate organizing entity be established, an option worth considering would be to assign the responsibility of organizing federal party leaders’ debates to the Broadcasting Arbitrator.[79] Alternatively, the Acting CEO, Mr. Perrault suggested that the model of the Broadcasting Arbitrator could be emulated in the establishment of a new entity responsible for organizing federal party leaders’ debates. A number of witnesses suggested this entity could be housed inside Elections Canada. In providing his suggestions, Mr. Perrault made it clear that it was Elections Canada’s view that it must be kept insulated from any decision-making regarding the leaders' debates and that the CEO should not be involved in any matters that could be perceived as having an influence on the orientation of the campaign or the results of the election.[80]

The Broadcasting Arbitrator is appointed to that role either through a unanimous decision of representatives of the registered political parties represented in the House of Commons, or, if consultations do not result in unanimity, through being named by the CEO.[81] The Broadcasting Arbitrator holds office until six months after Election Day of the general election that follows his or her appointment and can only be removed for cause by the CEO.[82]

Between elections, the duties of the Broadcasting Arbitrator generally consist of meeting and consulting with representatives of all registered political parties on the allocation of broadcasting time and allocating broadcasting time to every registered or eligible party.[83] During the campaign period, the Broadcasting Arbitrator must inform the CRTC of guidelines regarding the allocation of broadcasting time and procedures for booking broadcasting time by registered and eligible parties.[84] He or she also arbitrates any conflicts that arise between a broadcaster or network operator and the representative of a registered or eligible party concerning the purchase of broadcasting time under the CEA.[85]

Having considered the options provided to it by witnesses, the Committee recommends:

Recommendation 2

That a new autonomous office be created by the government called Canada’s Federal Party Leaders’ Debates Commissioner (for short: “Debates Commissioner”). The office should be placed within Elections Canada/the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer for the purposes of sharing appropriate internal services and receiving administrative support from Elections Canada. However, the Debates Commissioner would remain autonomous from Elections Canada in fulfilling its roles and responsibilities. Elections Canada must be kept separate and insulated from any decision-making on the part of the Debates Commissioner regarding the leaders' debates;

That the first Debates Commissioner must be chosen by a unanimous decision of representatives of registered parties represented in the House of Commons within three months; or, if the consultations do not result in a unanimous decision, be named by the Governor in Council following a recommendation made by a panel composed of no fewer than three of the following individuals: the Broadcasting Arbitrator; the Chairperson and Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission; a former Chief Electoral Officer; a former Officer of Parliament; or a retired judge within Canada;

That upon the vacancy of the office of Debates Commissioner, or upon receipt of written notice of the planned resignation of the Debates Commissioner, the Government of Canada must initiate the process for choosing a succeeding Debates Commissioner within three months;

That following the commencement of the process for choosing a succeeding Debates Commissioner, he or she must be chosen by a unanimous decision of representatives of registered parties represented in the House of Commons within three months; or, if the consultations do not result in a unanimous decision, be named by the Governor in Council following a recommendation made by a panel composed of no fewer than three of the following individuals: the Broadcasting Arbitrator; the Chairperson and Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission; a former Chief Electoral Officer; a former Officer of Parliament; or a retired judge within Canada; and

That the Debates Commissioner establish an advisory panel that he or she will consult prior to making key decisions related to the organization, accessibility and broadcasting of the debates that the office organizes. This panel could be composed of the following individuals: broadcasters and media organizations; representatives of political parties; representatives of new media; representatives of groups with disabilities; citizens; civil society groups; representatives of universities; and other experts.

iii.       Other considerations

Length of tenure: It was noted that the nature of the facilitator or commissioner’s mandate may not necessitate an ongoing entity.[86]

The Committee recommends:

Recommendation 3

That the Debates Commissioner hold office during good behaviour for a term of five years or two elections, whichever is greater, but may be removed for cause by a resolution of the House of Commons of at least a majority of the recognized parties; and

That the Debates Commissioner, on the expiry of a first or any subsequent term of office, is eligible to be reappointed for a further term not exceeding five years or two elections, whichever is greater.

Reporting obligations: A suggestion was made to the Committee that it consider whether a newly created leaders' debate organizing entity be required to report to Parliament. This feature would better ensure transparency in its decision-making.[87]

The Committee recommends:

Recommendation 4

That the Debates Commissioner be mandated to report back to Parliament after each federal general election.

C.   Powers of an entity responsible for organizing federal party leaders’ debates

Organizing, producing and broadcasting a federal party leaders’ debate involves numerous elements. During its study, the Committee heard a number of witnesses speak in favour of distinguishing between those aspects of the leaders' debates that offered the potential for improvement through formalization and those that should be left flexible and subject to negotiation between debate stakeholders.

The following sections provide information heard by the Committee about criteria for eligibility to participate in a leaders' debate, accessibility requirements of persons with disabilities, the number of debates to be held during an election campaign, decisions related to broadcasting leaders' debates, the enforcement of participation of invited party leaders and other miscellaneous matters.

i.    Establishing criteria for participation by political parties in a federal party leaders’ debate

A contentious matter that arises when organizing participants to hold a federal party leaders’ debate is the question of which political parties can participate and cannot.

A number of witnesses who appeared before the Committee agreed that an option for resolving this matter would be to create a set of criteria or guidelines that each political party would be measured against in order to qualify to participate in a leaders’ debate.[88] These witnesses stated that it may be worthwhile establishing a threshold which parties would have to meet or exceed in order to participate in a debate. The criteria should also have built-in flexibility in order to allow for the participation of emerging parties.[89]

Parties would have to meet all or some of the following criteria:[90]

• have had a sitting member of Parliament in the House of Commons at any time during the previous Parliament or at dissolution;
• have a certain total number of candidates vying to be elected or have candidates vying to be elected in a certain percentage of the total number of ridings in Canada, during either the most recent or the forthcoming general election;
• meet a threshold of aggregated public opinion support six months (or at another time) prior to a scheduled general election; and
• have garnered a specified percentage of the national vote at the most recent general election.

Some witnesses suggested that a party would have to meet a majority of the criteria or two-thirds of them in order to qualify to participate in a party leaders’ debate.[91] Mr. Perrault told the Committee that it was, in his view, preferable for Parliament to decide the criteria and have the independent debates organizing entity apply those criteria in a mechanical fashion, with no room for discretion.[92] The reason for this was that should a debates organizing entity be created as a federal body, it would be subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Mr. Perrault noted that past legal challenges to decisions surrounding leaders' debates under Charter failed on the basis that the debates were essentially private events, and not subject to Charter scrutiny.[93]

In terms of when to make the criteria for being eligible to participate in a party leaders' debate known to the public and when to decide which parties will be eligible to participate, witnesses suggested that a debates organizing entity should seek to avoid becoming mired in controversy over this decision during the campaign period.[94] In the case of the U.S. Commission on Presidential Debates, criteria they employ for determining who will be invited to participate in the debates are generally issued one year before the debates.[95]

The Committee recommends:

Recommendation 5

That the Debates Commissioner must consult with the advisory panel in setting any criteria for participation in debates organized by the Debates Commissioner. Further, the Commissioner should ensure that the criteria for participation in leaders’ debates should be made public well in advance of the campaign period.

ii.   Ensuring accessible federal party leaders’ debates for Canadians with disabilities

After having heard compelling testimony during this study from representatives of organizations advocating for persons with disabilities in Canada, the Committee would be remiss if it did not provide additional information about the expectations of Canadians with disabilities with respect to the accessibility of leaders’ debates and the electoral process in general. As detailed in the Chief Electoral Officer’s 2016 report entitled An Electoral Framework for the 21^st Century, many barriers currently remain that prevent disabled Canadians from fully exercising their constitutionally guaranteed right to meaningfully participate in the country’s electoral process.

Representatives of organizations of persons with disabilities told the Committee that, in the design and delivery of party leaders' debates, accessibility for persons with disabilities has largely been an afterthought.[96] Regrettably, numerous examples were cited about campaign materials being distributed and events being communicated and held, and not just those related to the televised leaders’ debates, in which the rights of persons with disabilities did not appear to be meaningfully taken into account.

The Committee was told that the following elements, if provided, would allow for more substantive participation by Canadians with disabilities:

• For television broadcasts, provide descriptive audio (or a narration overdubbed on top of a visual presentation).[97]
• For television broadcasts, provide picture-in-picture onscreen sign language interpretation in ASL (American Sign Language) for English-language debates and in LSQ (langue des signes québécoise) for French-language debates.[98] Alternately, it was noted that a recent televised provincial leaders’ debate in Quebec featured one sign language interpreter working in a neutral manner beside each party leader, live at the event.[99] The debates in Jamaica also have included live sign language interpretation.[100]
• For television broadcasts, provide closed captioning in English and French.[101]
• Test websites that will host future leadership debates to ensure the best accessibility (e.g., must have adequate colour contrast, be readable by a screen reader and/or a screen magnifier, etc.)[102]

Representatives of persons with disabilities further strongly suggested that an entity responsible for organizing leaders’ debates should establish and actively consult an advisory committee consisting of individuals appointed by the self-representative organizations of people with disabilities.[103]

The Committee agrees that leaders’ debates must be accessible to as many Canadians as possible, and therefore the Committee recommends:

Recommendation 6

That the Debates Commissioner be mandated to ensure that the leaders’ debates are broadcast and otherwise made available in a fully accessible and timely manner; and

That the Debates Commissioner be required to consult with and receive feedback from the advisory panel about matters related to the accessibility of the debates that office organizes.

iii. Ensuring a minimum number of debates

During its study, witnesses frequently cited predictability as a potential improvement that a debate organizing entity could provide to the organization of federal party leaders’ debates. A representative of a broadcasting organization that has participated in organizing debates in the past told the Committee that frequently, broadcasters spend a disproportionate amount of time and effort negotiating with political participants to find out if there will simply be a debate or not.[104]

Providing predictability to the holding of debates is also an important feature of the U.S. Commission on Presidential Debates. The Committee was told that the Commission announces the dates and venues for the debates a year in advance.[105]

When witnesses were asked if there is an ideal number of leaders’ debates that ought to be held during an election campaign, they responded that at least one English-language debate and one French-language debate should be held.[106] Witnesses also agreed that no upper limit needs to be established on the number of leaders’ debates held during a campaign period, with many stating that the more debates, the better.[107]

The Committee recommends:

Recommendation 7

That the Debates Commissioner be required to organize a minimum of at least one debate in each official language during general election campaign periods.

iv.  Decisions related to broadcasting the federal party leaders’ debates

Organizing, hosting and broadcasting federal party leaders’ debates is a complex affair involving numerous participants who often hold divergent interests. Political parties may attempt to gain partisan advantages while broadcasters, under the pressure of seeking audience and profit, may give preference to broadcast formats that feature spectacle and confrontation.[108] Discussions about hosting and broadcasting a debate need to resolve many key questions in order for the debate to proceed. These include but are not limited to:

• When and where will the debate be held?
• Who will be the moderator and what are the rules and format of the debate?
• Who will broadcast the debate?
• Who will pay for the debate to be produced?

Complicating matters are the ongoing demographic shifts in Canada’s population and the evolving nature of the country’s news media. The Committee heard that increasingly, when Canadians follow a live event, not only do they interact with each other on social media[109] but they expect to be able to interact with the event itself. Opportunities exist to increase the interactivity of future leaders’ debates by, for example, allowing Canadians to pose questions to party leaders online.[110]

At the same time, the Committee heard that by increasingly engaging in news content on social media platforms, the Canadian population is being divided into smaller and smaller segments.[111] This trend led some witnesses to state that an important role debates can play is to create a collective shared national experience.[112] To accomplish this, the combination of media platforms on which leaders’ debates are transmitted should have the potential to reach all Canadians.

(a) The role of an organizing entity for leaders’ debates in making broadcasting-related decisions

Turning to the question of what aspects, if any, of hosting and broadcasting a federal party leaders’ debate should be formalized and come under the purview of a debate organizing entity, most witnesses told the Committee they favoured, at most, light, flexible and adaptable regulation. The two concrete proposals brought up by witnesses for a potential role of a debate organizing entity in making decisions related to editorial aspects of the debates were:

• Parliament would establish overarching objectives that the debates must meet but then the entity, equipped with the proper expertise, would be given broad latitude to shape the format and editorial aspects of the debates, while respecting language requirements and accessibility considerations. In doing so, the entity would be required to receive input from participants and other stakeholders;[113] and
• Mandate the entity to evaluate independent leaders’ debate proposals and certify those that meet a certain standard or objectives as “must see”.[114]

Additionally, while not a proposal for how debate organization could be managed per se, a representative of a broadcasting organization stated that the manner in which the French-language debates were organized during the 2015 general election campaign could represent a model to be emulated in the future. It involved many partners; the television signal was shared; and it implicated social media platforms.[115]

Overall, the Committee did not glean many views from witnesses about how an independent debates organizing entity could interact with debate participants in making decisions related to hosting and broadcasting leaders’ debates. Witnesses did nonetheless provide multiple suggestions and/or objectives about how debates could be better organized or what features they would like to have added to future debates. These were:

• Hold leaders’ debates that are broadly accessible to the public and presented in a multitude of media formats so that debate content is available to the largest possible audience, including persons with disabilities;[116]
• Hold leaders’ debates that have the potential to reach each and every Canadian in the same time and in the same context, as part of a shared national experience;[117]
• Allow for a multitude of debate formats to target specific audiences;[118]
• Permit open access of debate content for viewing and following using live-streaming of the event across both broadcast and social networks.[119]
• Broadcast debate content live and in delayed time, while permitting editing of content into clips;[120]
• Place no restrictions on accessing raw debate content, remove broadcaster logos from content and allow the dissemination of as many excerpts as desired of the debates;[121]
• Depoliticize the debate organization process;[122]
• Ensure any rules or institutions that are created in relation to the debates remain technology neutral;[123]
• Allow a full range of media organizations to provide significant input in decisions related to hosting, managing and broadcasting/disseminating the debates;[124]
• Incorporate audience questions into the debate experience;[125]
• Supplement debate event coverage with social media data;[126] and
• Engage multiple partners, to the extent that no one set of stakeholders owns the debates and they are made accessible to all Canadians on any platform.[127]

The Committee recommends:

Recommendation 8

That the broadcasting feed for any debate organized by the Debates Commissioner be made available free of charge to any outlet or organization that wishes to distribute the debate and that no restrictions be placed on the use of that debate content.

Some Committee members also posed questions to witnesses about the desirability of mandating at least one media organization to broadcast party leaders’ debates. In response, representatives of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation responded that they were open to such a scenario[128] and representatives of the Cable Public Affairs Channel (CPAC) indicated they were open to ways they could contribute.[129] The representatives from Bell Media Inc. (CTV News) and Corus Entertainment Inc. told the Committee that they were against being mandated to broadcast the leaders’ debates.[130]

(b) Timing of leaders’ debates

The subject of the timing of the debates came up infrequently during the Committee’s study. The Committee heard that the debates should be scheduled in the last two weeks prior to Election Day[131] or that, similarly, they should be held mid-campaign or later.[132] No witnesses provided commentary or suggestions about the role an independent entity for organizing debates could have in respect of setting the date of a debate.

(c) Cost of the leaders’ debates

In the past, federal party leaders’ debates have usually been broadcast without commercial interruption. This means that the television networks that carried the debates had to displace scheduled programs and forego advertisement revenues for the duration of the debate.

Furthermore, it was left to the media/host entities that have produced the debates to pay for the costs related to production. The Committee heard that the average cost to produce a debate for the broadcasting consortium in 2011 was about $250,000.[133] The past consortium debates were paid for by the participating news organizations and distributed for use by other media entities on a pay-to-use basis or, on occasion, for free.[134] The choice about whether a network or media organization would carry the debate was left to the individual media entity.

During the 2015 general election, CPAC served as the television carrier for all five party leaders’ debates. A representative from CPAC told the Committee that their organization did not organize any debates, did not set rules or decide the format; instead, they delivered the content once the rules were established.[135]

The question for the Committee to consider is how this model would apply if there were an organizing entity for party leaders' debates. Some witnesses suggested to the Committee that a model could be put in place whereby a broadcaster is tasked by the debates organizing entity with hosting a debate and then provides the transmission to any interested stakeholder or party.[136] In a written submission to the Committee, the Green Party suggested consideration be given to providing funding for commercial networks that carry the debates, in order to compensate for lost revenue.

The committee recommends:

Recommendation 9

That the government ensure that the Debates Commissioner has the required funding to organize, produce, and distribute the debates it organizes.

(d) Journalistic standards

The Committee was told that in the context of federal party leaders' debates, the maintenance of high journalistic standards was an important concern for broadcasters. The elements that need to meet high journalistic standards include the format, the staging (e.g., lighting, the set, the camera angles, etc.), the topics, the questions and follow-up questions posed to the candidates and the moderator. The Committee agrees with broadcasters that the maintenance of high journalistic standards would be an important matter during any future debates.

The committee therefore recommends:

Recommendation 10

That the Debates Commissioner be mandated to maintain high journalistic standards in the organization of leaders’ debates.

v.   Enforcement of Participation

During negotiations to organize a federal party leaders’ debate, one of political participants’ most powerful and contentious bargaining tools is the threat to withhold their participation. The decision of any political party to not participate in a party leaders’ debate has profound impacts on the decision-making of other political participants and the media outlets seeking to host and broadcast a debate. Indeed, it is not difficult to envisage a future situation in which no federal party leaders’ debates are held during an election campaign, as a result of key political parties declining to participate.

In seeking to identify solutions, the Committee heard about two approaches: imposing legal sanctions and leaving the matter to the court of public opinion.

Those witnesses who favoured prescribing some form of legal punishment suggested the following options for sanctioning the non-participation of invited political party leaders in federal party leaders’ debates:

• establish a period of several days during which that leader's party could not broadcast advertising or a substantial but not debilitating penalty;[137]
• amend the CEA to provide for a reduction in the expected election campaign reimbursement for political parties whose leader declines to participate in a debate;[138]

In contrast, a number of other witnesses held the view that no legal sanctions were necessary for the following reasons:

• any sanction imposed on a political party leader or party would be unenforceable,[139]
• the better deterrent was for the individuals or party to pay some political price;[140] and
• create an incentive for party leaders to attend a debate by giving it public standing (e.g., have the debate approved by an independent debate organizing entity).[141]

The latter suggestions are similar to the operation of the U.S. Commission on Presidential Debates and the debate commissions in Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago. The Committee heard that in the U.S., for example, facing the adverse public reaction to skipping a debate was a bigger enforcement mechanism than denying the candidate or political party of funding or advertising time.[142]

The Committee agrees that the public expectation that invited political party leaders participate in debates organized by the Debates Commissioner should be sufficient to ensure that those leaders participate. At the same time, a priority objective of creating the office of the Debates Commissioner is to ensure that all invited party leaders attend the debates organized by the Commissioner. Therefore, the Committee recommends:

Recommendation 11

That the Debate Commissioner be mandated to organize and conduct debates even if an invited participant declines to attend. In the event that an invited participant declines to attend a debate organized by the Debates Commissioner, the Committee considers that it is within the Debates Commissioner’s purview to take actions the Commissioner deems appropriate to make that participant’s absence well-known during the debate. To that end, the Debates Commissioner could, for example, visibly place an empty podium on stage.

vi. Miscellaneous matters

(a)  Review of entity

It was suggested to the Committee that a debates organizing entity should undertake a post-debate evaluation of the accessibility and inclusiveness of the debate and that a report of the evaluation be tabled in Parliament.[143] The Committee heard that the U.S. Commission on Presidential Debates undertakes complete reviews of each debate, studying elements of the debate that range from candidate criteria, debate venues, law enforcement, media and moderators.[144]

The Committee recommends:

Recommendation 12

That Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs conduct a review of the functioning and operation of the office of the Debates Commissioner within five years of the first Debates Commissioner being chosen.

(b)  Timeline for establishing an independent debate organizing entity

The Committee is keenly aware that the projected date for Canada’s next federal general election is October 21, 2019. This date leaves a timeframe of about twenty months for a party leaders’ debates organizing entity to be put in place prior to the start of the campaign period. The Committee received almost no testimony about when a debate organizing entity would need to be in place for it to carry out its duties in relation to the upcoming election. On November 21, 2017, Minister Gould commented that, depending on the entity’s structure, the process for establishing the entity would need to unfold “in the coming months or so.”[145]