Networks to rein in candidates' debate by Antonia Zerbisias

When the federal political party chiefs come out of their corners Thursday and Friday for the first round of the leaders' debates, they won't be swinging.

That's because the group of broadcasters and politicos who determine the format for the election slugfests are eliminating the all-out verbal sparring.

Formerly open mikes will be closed. Political leaders will have to seek permission to speak from the moderators. It's going to be more like polite Jeopardy!

In other words, a gentlemanly duel, unlike the 2004 dust-up that had Prime Minister Paul Martin, Conservative chief Stephen Harper and, most especially, NDP leader Jack Layton and the Bloc Québécois' Gilles Duceppe elevating the decibel level but not the tone of the debate.

"All of us felt that the shouting, shouting, shouting was unacceptable," says CTV News president Robert Hurst. "It's fair to say that, some of the party leaders, their tactic was to shout because they had nothing to lose."

"We wanted a way to improve the format so that there is actual debate among the leaders — but not the kind of anarchy there was last time," explains CBC News honcho Tony Burman, who chairs the broadcasting consortium made up of CBC/Radio-Canada, CTV, Global Television and the private French-language network, TVA

This campaign, there are two sets of debates.

Round one consists of the French-language face-off on Thursday, while the English bout is on Friday at 8. Trina McQueen, a former journalist and executive at both CTV and CBC-TV, will moderate the English-language forum that takes place in Vancouver.

She will introduce videotaped segments from those Canadians deemed to be most representative from the more than 8,000 who submitted their questions. The leaders will each get a minute to answer, and then can have a go at each other, in a not-so-free-for-all.

The second round takes place in Quebec, in either Gatineau or Montreal, on Jan. 9 (English) and 10 (French). Questions will come not from viewers but from moderator Steve Paikin of TVO's Studio 2.

Burman says that everything about the debate is a complex negotiation, involving as many as 20 people around the table.

"This is all like the U.N.," he jokes, comparing it to making peace in the Middle East, "It's an endless process."

One real area of contention — again! — is which party leaders make it to the podium.

The Green Party is making a pitch for leader Jim Harris to be included, arguing that, unlike the Bloc, it is a national party, with a full slate of candidates. But, says Burman, there's never been a case when any leader has been included without his (or her) party holding at least one seat in the House of Commons: "That's the threshold."

For citizens, the advantage of the debates is that they are relatively unfiltered looks at the leaders, free of camera-friendly crowds and canned campaign stops. Which is why we watch. Some 11 million Canadians tuned into at least part of the June 2004 English-language debate.

But, this time, will holiday shopping and partying, plus the more polite format, drive viewing down? Steve Wyatt, Global-TV's senior vice-president of news and information, is not so sure that that the debates will be dull.

"I think it was boring last time," he says, noting how there was more ill will than illumination.

So what to look for?

For many, it's what journalists and pundits call "the knock-out punch."

Like in 1984, when then Liberal Prime Minister John Turner took it on the chin as Conservative contender Brian Mulroney, referring to Pierre Trudeau's senate appointments, thundered, "You had a choice."

Or perhaps in the U.S. in 1992, when then President George H.W. Bush could not relate to the woman asking how the national debt affected him. "I'm not sure I get it," he replied, allowing Democratic challenger Bill Clinton to reach out with folksy tales from Arkansas.

But that's not what the network guys necessarily hope for since, without ads, the debates are not about the ratings.

Says Burman: "At the end of four hours, what we want is that viewers — who are voters, who are citizens — are able to say, "That gave me an insight to what this election is about and what the leaders are about.'"

© Toronto Star