PROC Committee Report

DISSENTING OPINIONS OF THE OFFICIAL OPPOSITION

The 2015 federal election saw an unprecedented five leaders’ debates. CPAC carried all five debates live, new viewing formats were available, and Facebook and YouTube webcasted three of the debates. By all accounts, these leaders’ debates were successful, reaching millions of Canadians through differing viewing formats.

However, now, after numerous broken promises and negative publicity on the Democratic Institutions file, including unsuccessful attempts to ram through substantive changes to how both Canadian Parliament and democracy works within completely arbitrary time frames, the Liberal Government is once again rushing to fulfill a poorly-considered promise.

The following dissenting opinions, thoughts, and concerns, set out the conclusions of the Official Opposition.

Not in Good Faith

This Committee was tasked with studying the creation of an independent commissioner to organize political party leaders' debates during future federal election campaigns, under the mistaken assumption that the Liberal Government was actually seeking its input and recommendations. However, despite this study not yet being complete, and not knowing the substance of the proposed recommendations, the Liberals somehow managed to slap an arbitrary $6 million price tag on it in their recent Budget.  Paul Wells, a Maclean’s journalist who moderated one of the five party leaders’ debates held during the 2015 election campaign, when he heard about the exorbitant price tag, tweeted “I was like, we could have run SIXTY DEBATES”.

Further, the Minister of Democratic Institutions held a separate process for consultations on the organization of federal election debates and did not provide the Committee with a report of those findings. In fact, when a motion from the Official Opposition calling for the Committee to be fully briefed on all consultations prior to the completion of its report was put forward, the Liberal majority on the Committee voted this down.[1] This inevitably forced the Committee to make recommendations, without access to all relevant information.

The Committee heard testimony about debate commissioners in other nations, but in each case these were independent non-governmental organizations. None were created, funded or otherwise influenced by the government.[2] [3] [4] The Committee is proposing the government proceed into unprecedented involvement of the State in federal elections.  

These considerations have caused the Official Opposition to conclude that the Liberal Government is not approaching this Committee study in good faith, and has already come to predetermined conclusions.

History of Litigation and Potential Paralysis of Debates

Leaders’ debates already have a history of being litigated in Canadian courts.

The Liberal majority’s proposal is a prescription for paralysis because it will ensure that this pattern of court challenges will continue, increase and, now, succeed.

Government intervention in the organization of party leaders’ debates during general elections will only stymie efforts to connect interested voters to campaigning politicians because the debates will simply get bogged down in litigation.

Typically, court proceedings have been in the form of a last-minute application by a minor party omitted from an otherwise agreed upon debate.  Once, the omission of a Green Party leader even saw a private prosecution initiated against television broadcasters.[5]

One of the earliest court cases on debates, Trieger et al. v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. et al.,[6] covered many of the issues which remain relevant up to this day.  That decision serves as a prelude to the issues which lie ahead for Canadian politics.

In Trieger, the Green Party leader’s application was denied for, among other reasons, the fact that, as a private undertaking, the arrangements for party leaders’ debates were not subject to constitutional challenges.

Subsequent cases concerning federal leaders’ debates followed the lead of Trieger, such as National Party of Canada v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp,[7] Natural Law Party of Canada v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation,[8] Gauthier v. Milliken et al.,[9] and May v. CBC/Radio-Canada.[10]

Court cases in the intervening years on other aspects of the Canadian electoral system, including (but certainly not limited to) Figueroa v. Canada (Attorney General),[11] means that leaders’ debates will not only become subject to judicial oversight, by virtue of the Liberal majority’s recommendations, but they will be challenged from an ever-growing number of angles.

At the end of the day, the critical final decisions on party leaders’ debates will be taken by judges—not by the political parties, not by broadcasters, and certainly not by the commission the Liberal majority is proposing.

Judges have also recognized that this is not an ideal arrangement.  Past rulings have hinted at the courts’ aversion to having this responsibility.

In Trieger, Mr. Justice Campbell stated, “There is an obvious practical difficulty here that candidates and leaders cannot be forced to debate.  Debates must be negotiated by agreement.”

In National Party of Canada, the applications judge, Mr. Justice Berger, wrote:

Absent cogent evidence of mischief calculated to subvert the democratic process and absent evidence of statutory breach, this Court should not enter the broadcasting arena and usurp the functions of the broadcast media.  The political agenda is best left to politicians and the electorate; television programming is best left to the independent judgment of broadcasters and producers.

Despite that, the Liberal majority is setting up a collision course in the courts over the leaders’ debates in next year’s general election.  Perhaps that is why the Liberal Government has determined that it needs to earmark $6-million for a sight-unseen debate commission—in order to pay the bills.

The Official Opposition believes that elections are best left in the hands of parties, candidates, and—most importantly—voters.  The Liberal majority’s proposal will work to diminish this cornerstone principle of democracy, and we cannot support it.

Journalistic Standards and Debate Broadcasting

The Official Opposition disagrees with the strong implication by broadcast consortium representatives that the debates held by non-consortium members during the 2015 general election did not meet the test of high broadcast and journalistic standards.[12] Furthermore, we do not agree that the members of the broadcast consortium together hold an exclusive monopoly on credibility, journalistic integrity, or high-quality digital broadcast capability.

Mr. Wells informed the committee of his opinion that,

The technological revolution that made 2015 possible is continuing and accelerating. Costs of mounting a live broadcast have collapsed to near zero. By 2019 and 2023, the number of organizations with the wherewithal to organize debates and to get them in front of audiences will be much bigger still than in 2015.[13]

The Official Opposition believes that claims by any media or technology organization that they alone are able to deliver a leaders’ debate that meets some measure of “high journalistic standards” should be treated with cynicism.

The 2015 federal election featured five successful leaders’ debates, only one of which was hosted by the broadcast consortium. Therefore, the suggestion that there was a problem with either the number or the quality of leaders’ debates that needs to be addressed in the coming election by means of direct government intervention is simply ridiculous.

All individuals and organizations involved in the 2015 debate organization were well established individuals and entities in their fields, and the debates were broadcast across multiple television and internet platforms.

1. The first debate was produced by Maclean’s Magazine and Rogers Media, a multi-platform communications enterprise which includes the Sportsnet, City, and OMNI television broadcasters. It was moderated by Paul Wells, a respected journalist with over two decades experience in Canadian politics. The debate included live translations into French, Italian, Mandarin, Cantonese, and Punjabi. It aired live on City TV stations (English), CPAC (English and French), and Omni Television stations (all other languages), was streamed live at the Maclean's website and on all the broadcasting networks' websites, on Facebook, on YouTube, and on Rogers Media news radio stations.
2. The second debate was moderated by Globe and Mail Editor-in-Chief David Walmsley, and produced by The Globe and Mail and Google Canada. It aired live on CPAC (English and French) with an additional English feed in Ontario on CHCH television, and streamed live on The Globe and Mail’s website and on YouTube.
3. The third debate was hosted by the broadcast consortium (CBC/Radio-Canada, CTV, Global, Télé-Québec), and La Presse. This debate was held in French and was moderated by Radio-Canada journalist Anne-Marie Dussault. It aired live in French on Ici Radio-Canada Télé and Télé-Québec stations, and streamed on the participant networks' websites, in English on CPAC, CBC News Network, CTV News Channel, and on the participant networks' websites.
4. The fourth debate was bilingual and hosted by Facebook Canada and the Aurea Foundation, as part of the foundation's regular Munk Debates, and moderated by Munk Debates organizer Rudyard Griffiths. It aired on CPAC (English and French) with an additional English feed in Ontario on CHCH television, and streamed live on the Munk Debates website, and on Facebook.
5. The fifth debate, a French language debate, was hosted by private broadcaster TVA (Quebecor Media) and was moderated by TVA anchor Pierre Bruneau. It aired with simultaneous interpretation to English on CPAC, and in French on TVA stations, Le Canal Nouvelles, and streamed on the TVA Nouvelles website.

The Official Opposition notes that CPAC, the Cable Public Affairs Channel which presents Parliamentary, political and public affairs programming, was the only platform, whether television or internet-based, that broadcast live each of the five leaders’ debates that were held during the 2015 federal general election. This was to their credit; CPAC took this action in service to the public even though CPAC was not a formal partner in organizing or broadcasting any of those debates.[14] The Official Opposition hopes that CPAC will continue this practice.

The Official Opposition believes that, in the interest of ensuring that each election leaders’ debate has a large potential television audience, the CBC and Radio-Canada, in their role as Canada’s taxpayer-funded public broadcasters, should choose to broadcast all leaders’ debates live, preferably on their main networks, and regardless of their involvement in the production of those debates.

Conclusion

Given the preceding opinions, thoughts, and concerns, including the history of litigation surrounding debates, the Liberal Government’s broken promise that it would seek this Committee’s input and recommendations prior to adopting a course of action, and the comical assertion that leaders’ debates have a quality-control issue that will be fixed via de facto nationalization, the Official Opposition simply cannot support this proposed new process for federal election leaders’ debates.