Liberal leader Justin Trudeau, Green Party leader Elizabeth May and Former NDP leader Thomas Mulcair and Former Conservative Leader Stephen Harper take part a debate Thursday, August 6, 2015 in Toronto. MPs are in the midst of debating how future debates will be structured and regulated. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Frank Gunn

There is broad consensus among those in the political and media bubbles that the system governing federal leaders’ debates needs a face lift — but the debate about debates isn’t producing as much of a consensus about how that reboot should play out.

A House of Commons committee is in the middle of studying a proposal to create an independent commissioner, or entity, that would oversee leaders’ debates during federal election campaigns — something Prime Minister Justin Trudeau instructed his democratic institutions minister, Karina Gould, to look into in order to “improve” Canadians’ exposure to political parties’ policies and the candidates they have to choose between at the ballot box.

The committee has so far heard from close to 20 witnesses on the matter, including university professors, senior broadcast executives, associations representing Canadians with disabilities and the Commission on Presidential Debates. While opinions differ on how a new debate model should be structured and who should run the show, witnesses do agree that the nature of the debates should be non-partisan, accessible, and driven by the public interest, with the ultimate goal of reaching as many Canadians as possible.

“For millions of Canadians, these debates are the central event of the campaign — the only time they sit down for two or three hours straight and concentrate on it,” Paul Adams, associate professor of journalism at Carleton University, told the committee on November 23. “It’s time to institutionalize these debates.”

Traditionally, a consortium of the country’s biggest TV networks — including CBC/Radio-Canada, CTV, Global, and TéléQuébec — negotiated with the parties every election year over how the leaders’ debates would be produced and broadcast. That decades-old model collapsed in 2015, however, after the Conservatives, followed by the NDP, backed out of the discussions. As a result, there was no nationally broadcast, English-language leaders’ debate during the last federal election campaign.

Instead, 2015 saw a handful of different media outlets, including the Globe and Mail and Maclean’s, hosting their own debates — which were not widely broadcast. Many lamented the breakdown, but just as many saw it as an opportunity to shake things up.

While her mandate letter refers specifically to a “commissioner,” Gould told MPs she is open to a range of overnight models — whether statutory or nonstatutory, like a non-governmental organization. If the government does decide to go the route of a commissioner or commission, many witnesses have said it’s paramount that person or entity be completely neutral and non-partisan.

To ensure that neutrality, Parliament should clearly legislate certain rules they would have to enforce — like who is included and excluded from debates — and leave little room for discretion, Acting Chief Electoral Officer Stéphane Perrault suggested on November 30.

Perrault added that a commissioner should still be given “latitude” to accept input from stakeholders, like broadcasters and disability advocates, on the content and format of the debates.

Others, including Adams, warned against implementing “overly rigid rules.” Maclean’s senior writer Paul Wells, who moderated the debate his employer hosted in 2015, also urged the committee to “favour lighter structures” and “more flexibility” to so that debates remain adaptable in a fast-changing political and digital environment. Janet Brown, executive director of the Commission on Presidential Debates, echoed those recommendations as well.

Some argued against the creation of a commissioner altogether, saying a solution might lie in an institution that already exists, like Elections Canada. As the independent agency who conducts general elections and referendums, many suggested it might be appropriate for the chief electoral officer to take on this new responsibility.

But Perrault quickly shut that down — insisting that the head of Elections Canada should “should not be involved in matters that could be perceived as having an influence on the orientation of the campaign or the results of the election.”

Meanwhile, non-partisan think-tank Samara Canada proposed a solution landing somewhere in the middle: a “debates arbitrator” — perhaps modelled after Elections Canada’s broadcasting arbitrator, who oversees the allocation of broadcasting time to registered political parties during elections.

“This mid-range approach might be most appropriate at this time, given that we are embarking on a somewhat new area of regulation,” suggested Jane Hilderman, Samara’s executive director.

Witnesses are also divided on whether the person or entity in charge of organizing the debates be given the power to compel leaders to show up at debates and sanction them if they don’t. Gould herself didn’t appear sold on the idea last month, saying she would hope a leader’s punishment for not participating “would be at the ballot box.”

Commissioner or no commissioner, strict rules or loose rules, the TV networks seem happy to let Parliament makes those calls, but they all want to be involved in the production and broadcasting of debates. Many witnesses, including the networks, naturally, argued that TV is still the most efficient way to reach the widest audiences in Canada, despite the shift to digital.

It has been suggested that CPAC — an independent 24-hour network dedicated to public affairs programming — should serve as a “host broadcaster” for future debates. Some noted that CPAC, as a commercial-free not-for-profit, might be able to broadcast debates free of the programming interests and scheduling conflicts the major consortium broadcasters have to weigh.

CPAC seems open to the idea and left MPs with the message: “Just let us know how we can help.” But the idea didn’t sit as well with members of the consortium, who argued that the consortium’s “production approach … would be far more beneficial and have greater impact” and the major networks have better ratings.

When it comes to how many debates should be held, a common refrain was to aim for a balance of old and new: mandate a minimum number of debates — which the broadcasters could carry — while leaving room for other players to test out new formats and approaches.

“There must be some provision for novel and unorthodox proposals to become reality,” Wells said.

Graham Fox, the president and CEO of the Institute for Research on Public Policy, echoed a similar argument but still urged MPs to ensure that a debate in each official language, with all the major party leaders present, would be nationally broadcast every election year.

An undisputed recommendation is that, regardless of the format and the platform, the debates should be fully accessible to Canadians with disabilities. The committee heard earlier this week from witnesses who said that accessibility in this context has been an “afterthought.” Debates and other election materials lack adequate sign language interpretation and closed captioning for the deaf, and braille and descriptive audio for the blind, they said.

“It is impossible for me to do what I have a right to do in this country … to do that as a person who’s totally blind, and do it as an informed decision,” said Diane Bergeron, vice-president of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind.

Bergeron and others said they would like to see any independent commissioner or commission be advised by a committee of accessibility experts.

Gould said in November that she thinks it’s important to get a new framework going before the next federal election campaign kicks off. The minister told MPs she plans to bring forward several options for new models in the new year, based on her own consultations, with the intention of selecting one in the spring.

So, depending on when MPs wrap up their study and present their report, it’s unclear how much their recommendations will influence the minister’s plan. Still, Gould said she will follow the committee’s work “closely” and said its report will “inform my thinking.”

The committee is scheduled to hear from Twitter and La Presse next week and has asked representatives from TVA and the Huffington Post to testify as well.