Another wee election debate tonight. The Munk federal leaders' debate (CPAC, 7 p.m.) is about foreign policy, I gather. Like most of Canada, I'm not part of the Munk Debates clique, so I only know what I hear about it.
And that is the position of many Canadians in this election – they hear about the debates rather than watch, listen and decide. The lack of a national English-language debate seen simultaneously on all TV channels is a national disgrace. And the lack of an outcry, apart from some occasional newspaper punditry, suggests to me that as a country we are not actually engaged by national politics. We can't be bothered.
Way back months ago, the so-called consortium of TV broadcasters failed to reach agreement with all the main parties for a leaders' debate and a kind of chaos ensued. At the time I'm writing this, CBC-TV has, in its schedule for Thursday, Oct. 8, at 6:30 p.m. ET, "Canada Votes: Federal Leaders' Debate." I have no idea if this will actually happen.
First thing to note is that "consortium" is just a word. There is no formal alliance of all Canadian broadcasters to deliver leaders' debates during a national election. The "consortium" isn't answerable to any person or party. It's a joke, this entire charade.
And we as a country are to blame for the charade. If enough people cared, the main political parties would understand there is a duty – no other word is suitable – to allow the national electorate to see a national debate at election time.
Every four years, Canadians who care watch in awe as the U.S. Commission on Presidential Debates delivers several serious-minded and fair debates between presidential candidates. These debates are aired on all TV channels at the same time. Then, we forget about it and allow a ridiculous, loose cabal of Canadian broadcasters to conspire with the main political parties to deliver debates. (Always outside of prime time, of course, so the commercial investment in U.S. network shows isn't diminished.) Or not, as the case is this election year.
Instead we've had these niche debates, such as the Munk Debate tonight. The Maclean's debate went off well, mainly because its owners, the broadcaster Rogers, delivered a TV event, even if it was only available on City channels and CPAC.
Since the Globe Debate, this column is in receipt of gloating mail inviting me to review it. The gloating is anchored in the perception that it was terrible television. Well, the CBC, in its wisdom, is ahead of me on that. The Globe Debate on the economy had barely ended and the CBC was mocking it, on TV and on Twitter. Some CBC on-air personalities joined in. The Globe Debate was far from ideal TV, but it wasn't made for television. It was made by us for the Web and offered to broadcasters, as a courtesy.
Yes, it was hard to watch at times and sometimes a near-shambles as the three leaders bickered and shouted. But here's the thing – lacking close to a billion dollars in public funding and lacking the attendant resources and smugness, this newspaper gamely organized a leaders' debate and delivered it, mistakes and all.
What bothers me as a critic and a citizen is that we have allowed both Canadian broadcasters and Canadian political parties to evade the responsibility to present the leaders in debates accessible to all Canadians. If enough people cared, it would happen.
Canadians are highly exercised about TV in this country. Complaining about cable companies and the fees they charge for channels is a national pastime. Broadcast regulation is discussed on the same level as sports events. We take our access to (mostly American) programs and channels with great seriousness. We are not, it seems, as serious about our election process. And that is to our great shame.
Tonight's wee debate is on foreign policy. It might, however, be an opportunity to sneak in a question about election debates. Perhaps moderator Rudyard Griffths could say this: "In foreign countries such as the United States, there is a formal procedure for organizing election debates available to all voters. If elected, will you commit to guaranteeing such a procedure for the next federal election?"
Wishful thinking. Nobody cares enough.