On March 31, 2011, Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party of Canada brought an application to review the decision of the Broadcast Consortium to exclude her from the televised debates of party leaders. The application for judicial review was brought in the Federal Court of Appeal.
The day before, the Consortium announced that the English language will be held on April 12. This debate will be followed by a French language debate two days later. The Consortium is made up of Canada's largest broadcasters; CBC/Radio-Canada,CTV, Global and TVA. These networks pool their resources and are responsible for ensuring the public has access to leaders' debates in both the French and English languages during the election campaign.
The leaders who will participate in the debates are the leaders of the four parties that held seats in the House of Commons; the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party, the NDP, and the Bloc Quebecois. The dates were chosen after the four parties agreed to participate on the specified dates. May was excluded because the Green Party held no seats in the last Parliament.
Application to Review the Decision
The application was brought in the name of Elizabeth May, not the Green Party of Canada. Section 28 of the Federal Court Act gives the Federal Court of Appeal jurisdiction to review decisions of federal boards and tribunals. Section 28(1)(c) specifically gives the court the power to review decisions made by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). It is the policy of the CRTC that May is attacking. The action is being brought, not against the CRTC but against the individual networks that make up the Broadcasting Consortium.
May is asking the Court to order the Consortium and the networks to include her in the leaders' debate. She will argue that all party leaders whose parties got at least 2% of the vote in the last election, whether their parties hold seats in the House of Commons or not be allowed to participate. The figure of 2% of the vote is significant. Under Canadian law, any party who got at least that percentage of the vote during the last previous election is entitled to receive $1.75 per vote from the taxpayers.
During the 2008 election, the Green Party received 6.8% of the total vote and received payment from the government. While May was initially excluded from the 2008 televised debates, she was later allowed to take part after an outcry from the public.
May will argue that the decision of the broadcasters to exclude her was arbitrary and a violation of section 3 of the Charter of Rights. Section 3 provides democratic rights to Canadian citizens. Specifically, every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in elections of persons to the House of Commons and provincial legislatures and has the right to qualify for membership in those bodies.
May is also requesting the policy of which leaders can participate in televised debates be made public.
Should Elizabeth May be Allowed to Participate in Televised Debates?
There are arguments, both pro and con on whether May and the Green Party should be allowed to take part in the debates. The major argument against participation by the Green Party leader is that the party has never held a seat in Parliament. Green has run federally in the past but never been elected. The debate should therefore be restricted to the parties who actually direct or influence Canada's domestic and foreign policy.
According to Elections Canada, there are 19 registered political parties in Canada including the Communist Party of Canada, the Marxist-Leninist Party, the Rhinoceros Party and the Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party of Canada. If May, whose party has never held a seat in Parliament is allowed to debate, so should the leaders of all the other parties.
On the other hand, May was allowed to participate in 2008 which gives support to the argument that the decision to exclude her in the 2011 debates was arbitrary. And unlike the other fringe parties, the Green Party runs candidates in all 308 ridings.
The major argument as to why the Green Party leader should participate is that, unlike the other fringe parties, the taxpayers pay money to the Greens because of the 2% rule; Canadians should be allowed to see and hear what they are paying for.
Are Television Debates Important?
There was a time when television was the only means Canadians had to see party leaders debate the issues. Not so any more. The leaders could if they wanted to, ignore the Consortium and hold their own debates that would be broadcast on the Internet. The media that follow every move these leaders make during the campaign, would undoubtedly cover such debates.
In the past, communication between parties during an election campaign was done by private correspondence or telephone. Now, the party leaders tweet to each other, with all the world allowed to see. Television does not have the monopoly that it once did in showing interchanges between party leaders.
During Canadian election campaigns we not only debate the issues - we debate the debates.
Arthur Weinreb - Weinreb is an author, associate editor and columnist with Canada Free Press and the Canadian Affairs Feature Writer for Suite 101.
Join the Conversation