 |
Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion speaks at a town hall event in Calgary on Sept. 22.
Photo: Alan Mattson/Calgary Journal
|
In elections, debates are seen as a key turning point, a unique opportunity for leaders to present themselves and their ideas to a live audience.
In Canada, a group of five television networks — the CBC, Radio-Canada, Global Television, CTV and Quebec-based TVA — control the timing, terms and participation of the federal debates.
With few problems, this broadcast consortium has held sway over the process since the first televised debate in 1968.
After Prime Minister Stephen Harper called an election in September, the consortium announced Green Party leader Elizabeth May would be excluded from the debates.
May has campaigned to be included since being shut out on 2006 on the grounds the party was not represented in the House of Commons.
But shortly before the election, Blair Wilson left the Liberals and became the Greens’ first Member of Parliament.
Harper and NDP leader Jack Layton said that if the Green Party were included, they would not participate in the debates.
Liberal leader Stéphane Dion said while he didn’t oppose May’s inclusion, he wouldn’t attend a debate without the prime minister.
“The networks then faced having a debate without the people that are most likely to form a government,” said Vince Carlin, the CBC’s ombudsman who ruled on the matter in 2006.
There was considerable public outcry — Carlin said his office was “inundated with complaints” about May’s exclusion.
On Sept. 10, the Conservatives and NDP announced they no longer opposed May’s participation. Shortly after, the consortium announced it would invite May to participate.
The heads of the five networks essentially made an editorial decision — perhaps the biggest decision a Canadian journalist can make, according to Carlin’s 2006 review.
“A party leaders’ debate during an election campaign isn’t just a routine event: history has shown that these debates are among the most closely followed election activities, serving not only to enlighten voters but also to influence their decisions on polling day.”
Some believe the network heads shouldn’t have this responsibility.
Tony Burman, a former chief of CBC News who once chaired the consortium, wrote in the Globe and Mail recently that the debate process is “a sham.”
He called for “Canadians – through the CRTC – to pull the plug on the networks and entrust this vital mission to an independent, non-partisan “commission” similar to how it is done in the U.S.”
The U.S. Commission on Presidential Debates decides the terms of the American debates, unless both candidates agree to a change. But Canada has decided to trust journalists with these crucial campaign events.
“Canadians trust their journalists more than Americans do,” Carlin said. Standards are seen as higher here as well.
The networks, he pointed out, were prepared to exclude a party with a sitting MP because of pressure from politicians.
“It’s not a trust question, it’s really a power or manipulation question,” Carlin said.
The networks aren’t legally mandated to hold debates, so there is no formal structure.
Marsha Barber, who teaches broadcast journalism at Ryerson University, said journalists should be as transparent as possible with their decisions, and she feels the consortium has done a good job.
“Generally, the consortium has a responsible approach to this,” Barber said. “I think the process is transparent.”
(The consortium’s spokesperson did not return The Journal’s calls and voice messages by press time.)
After the debates and the Oct. 14 election, Carlin said he and his Radio-Canada counterpart Julie Miville-Dechêne would review the matter again. |
