Skip to main content

A man leaves the CBC building in Toronto on Wednesday, April 4, 2012.

Nathan Denette/THE CANADIAN PRESS

A consortium of major broadcasters that has traditionally run federal party leader's debates is fighting back in the wake of Stephen Harper's decision to skip its upcoming events.

The broadcasters, including CBC, Radio-Canada, CTV and Global, released a statement Thursday arguing they alone can provide the greatest audience reach for these TV debates.

The consortium argued that the debates the Harper Conservatives have chosen to attend, including ones organized by Maclean's and TVA, will not reach a wide enough audience. Rogers will broadcast the Maclean's debate through assets including CityTV.

Story continues below advertisement

"TVA, CityTV and Maclean's debates will no doubt be valuable to their viewers and readers," Consortium spokesperson Liliane Le said. "However, TVA is a broadcaster mainly focused on the Quebec market, CityTV is an urban-based broadcaster with six stations and Maclean's has a circulation of over 300,000."

By comparison, the major broadcasters say, the consortium's audience range is far wider.

"Every Canadian has access to one, if not all, of the broadcast Consortium' stations. Radio-Canada broadcasts to all Francophones across the country," Ms. Le said.

"The Consortium's audience share for the 2011 leaders debates was over 10-million viewers for the English-language debate and over four-million viewers for the French-language debate," she said.

A federal election is expected this October, and this Tuesday the Harper Conservatives shook up plans for campaign debates, saying they would refuse to participate in the traditional leaders' debates run by the consortium of broadcasters and instead take part in as many as five independently staged debates in the run-up to the fall federal election.

The decision by Mr. Harper's Conservatives to walk away from the consortium that has historically run these events will erode the power that major broadcasters have had in determining how federal political leaders face off on TV before elections.

It appears to be an effort by the Tories to decrease the political weight of the debates by splitting them into smaller events with smaller audiences where the Conservatives have more leverage to achieve the format and focus that they feel suits them as a right-of-centre incumbents.

Story continues below advertisement

Conservative campaign spokesman Kory Teneycke said the Tories have rejected the consortium's proposal to hold four debates and have accepted invitations to participate in the two rival debates.

He said the Conservatives are open to participating in three more – two English-language and one French – but that the party will not accept further proposals from the consortium.

Until recently, Mr. Teneycke was a senior executive at Sun News Network, a now-defunct right-wing media outlet that made no secret of its distaste for CBC, the taxpayer-funded broadcaster.

The Conservative decision puts pressure on other federal political parties to follow suit in abandoning the consortium-run debates. However, neither the NDP nor the Liberals said they would reject the traditional consortium-run debates.

But the NDP said they have also accepted the Maclean's debate invitation, accepted TVA's in principle, as well as a third debate put forward by an initiative on women's equality called Up for Debate.

The consortium, for its part, says it still plans to hold its debates even if Mr. Harper isn't present.

Story continues below advertisement

"The major networks intend to organize leaders' debates at the height of the campaign and Canadians will be able to watch the debates both on conventional TV and in digital spaces. Once again, the Consortium intends to distribute its debates to other media outlets as it believes that all Canadians should be able to watch the political debates which are useful tools in helping them make educated decisions at the polls," Ms. Le said.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Comments

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • All comments will be reviewed by one or more moderators before being posted to the site. This should only take a few moments.
  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed. Commenters who repeatedly violate community guidelines may be suspended, causing them to temporarily lose their ability to engage with comments.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.
Cannabis pro newsletter