Federal election 2015: Conservative move on election debates raises questions

Only in official Ottawa could tales of tense backroom negotiations over who should get to host the next round of federal election debates so swiftly take on a conspiratorial tone.

But like a Fight Club-esque twist that makes you flip back to the beginning to reread in an entirely different light, the signs of a coming confrontation between the governing Conservatives and Canada's major broadcasters were there all along.

• At Issue panel: The debate over the debates
• Conservatives shake up election debates with pre-campaign plan

Last fall, documents purportedly leaked from a presentation to cabinet by Canadian Heritage Minister Shelly Glover suggested the government was actively considering amending federal copyright laws to allow unlimited use of "news content" including TV and radio clips in political advertisements produced by registered parties and candidates.

A few months earlier, representatives from CBC/Radio Canada, CTV, Rogers and Shaw (Global News) had taken the rare step of banding together to announce that they would no longer air political advertisements that include material taken from their airwaves without their express authorization.

As yet, no exemption has come forward, but the fact that such a move was even under consideration was widely seen as a return shot across the bow atCanada's biggest broadcasters.

• Conservatives' copyright law changes could backfire

Fast forward, then, to last week, and news the Conservatives had rejected an initial proposal put forward by the broadcast consortium, choosing instead to accept the invitations put forward by Maclean's Magazine in conjunction with its parent company, Rogers, and Quebec-based TVA.

Reaction mixed

Not surprisingly, reaction was mixed: while some commentators praised what they saw as a long overdue smashing of the de facto monopoly enjoyed by the consortium at the expense of smaller independent media outlets, others accused the Conservatives of attempting to take control over a process intended to be impartial.

But there is a distinct lack of details on how, exactly, this brave new world of free market democracy will actually work, and what the parameters are.

If a debate happens outside the writperiod (as what's being discussed indeed might) is it still an "election" debate?

And given the fervour with which the governing Conservatives were seemingly seized, albeit briefly, with the need to ensure political parties could freely use mediafootagein campaign ads, what rightswill parties have to slice and dice the highlights and lowlights for social media or paid election advertising?

They're not the only ones with a vested interest in distribution rights: other media outlets will also be keen to find out what restrictions apply.

The now infamous charity boxing boutbetween Liberal MP Justin Trudeau and then-Conservative Senator Patrick Brazeau was, after all, shown live exclusively on the now-defunct Sun News Network.

While other networks were permitted to air a few select minutes of the fight, SNN gleefully and rightly touted its status as the sole proprietor of the full footage, as do virtually all media outlets that pay for official broadcast rights.

Under the consortium system, participating networks which, until TVA's decision to go it alone this year, included all broadcast media outlets pooled production resources and overhead costs. The debate wasavailable across the country.

But now?

Sources tellCBC News both Rogers and another potentialdebate host,Bloomberg,signaled their intentions to distribute the debate toall interested outlets, including competitors.

But how online? Live, or on-demand? Over cable or a satellite channel? To subscribers only?

Consortium option still on the table

Host broadcasters could be reluctant to let the competition piggybackwithout shouldering some of the burden, which in turn may putperennially penny-pinching media outlets that is to say,all of them in a tight spot: should they risk missing major developmentsin the other guy's debate tofocus only on the one they're designing and paying for?

And is the debate consortium dead if the Tories won't play?

Time will tell if the broadcasters' solidarity holds.Other political parties havenot ruled outtaking part in a consortium-run debate, even whileconsidering newoffers.

Everyoneseems toagreeCanadian voters should have more opportunities to watchleaders competefor their electoral affections.

But what's the best way to do that impartially for the widest possible audience?

After all, if the much-hoped for "knockout punch" isn't aired across the country and replayed at length on televisionnews shows and across social media, what impact will it have at the polls?