Participation Criteria for the Next Leaders’ Debates
I. Introduction
The Leaders' Debates Commission ("the Commission") is mandated with setting the participation criteria for the leaders' debates and ensuring that the leader of each political party that meets those criteria is invited to participate in the debates.
After consultations with registered political parties and stakeholders, and a review of the historical selection criteria, the Commission has decided on the participation criteria that it will employ to invite leaders to the leaders' debates.
This decision sets out the Commission’s participation criteria for the 45th general election and the Commission's rationale for the criteria. The criteria are based on the Commission’s review of consultations, evidence, analysis and conclusions made by the Commission in relation to the 2019 and 2021 Participation Criteria, along with evidence collected and consultations held with stakeholders in relation to participation criteria for the 45th general election, including the leaders of all registered political parties.
In order to be invited by the Commission to participate in the leaders' debates, a leader of a registered political party must meet two of the following criteria:
(i): on the date the general election is called, the party is represented in the House of Commons by a Member of Parliament who was elected as a member of that party.
(ii): 28 days before the date of the general election, the party receives a level of national support of at least 4%, determined by voting intention, and as measured by leading national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations' most recently publicly-reported results.
(iii): 28 days before the date of the general election, the party has endorsed candidates in at least 90% of federal ridings.
II. The Commission’s Mandate
The Commission was established under Order in Council P.C. 2018-1322, dated October 29, 2018 (“2018 OIC”) to organize one leaders’ debate in each official language during each general election period.
The 2018 OIC was amended by Order in Council P.C. 2020-0871, dated November 5, 2020 ("2020 OIC") to give the Commission the mandate to set participation criteria for the leaders’ debates and ensure that the leader of each political party that meets those criteria is invited to participate:
The mandate of the Leaders' Debates Commission is to:
…
(b) set participation criteria for the leaders' debates and ensure that the leader of each political party that meets those criteria is invited to participate in the debates;
(b.1) make the participation criteria public
(i) for a general election held in accordance with subsection 56.1(2) of the Canada Elections Act, no later than June 30 before the day set by that subsection; or
(ii) for a general election not held in accordance with subsection 56.1(2) of the Canada Elections Act, no later than seven days after the issue of the writs.”
The Commission’s authority was further amended by Order in Council 2024-0598, dated April 24, 2024 (“2024 OIC”) to provide that:
6(4) In the event of the absence or incapacity of the Debates Commissioner, or of a vacancy in that office, the highest-ranking staff member of the Secretariat of the Commission is authorized to exercise the powers and perform the duties and functions of the Debates Commissioner.
III. Context and Considerations
A. Prior Participation Criteria
The 2020 OIC amended the 2018 OIC and gave the Commission the mandate to set the participation criteria for its debates.
On June 22, 2021, the Commission published its decision, Participation Criteria for the Leaders’ Debates for the 44th General Election. As described in that decision, the Commission undertook the task of setting the participation criteria by consulting with the leaders of all registered political parties, along with other stakeholders, media and the public. It also considered the historical application of debate participation criteria in past Canadian elections, the 2019 participation criteria set by the 2018 OIC, and existing public policy documents on debate participation criteria.
The decision described the historical application of debate participation criteria prior to the creation of the Commission in 2018, when televised leaders’ debates were organized by a range of entities.
It further described the Commission’s approach to the participation criteria in the 43rd general election, the first to be organized by the Commission. For that election the participation criteria were set out in the 2018 OIC, which provided that the party must meet two of the following criteria:
(i) at the time the general election in question is called, the party is represented in the House of Commons by a Member of Parliament who was elected as a member of that party,
(ii) the Debates Commissioner considers that the party intends to endorse candidates in at least 90% of electoral districts in the general election in question,
(iii) the party's candidates for the most recent general election received at that election at least 4% of the number of valid votes cast or, based on the recent political context, public opinion polls and previous general election results, the Debates Commissioner considers that candidates endorsed by the party have a legitimate chance to be elected in the general election in question.
With respect to whether, under criterion (iii), the Commissioner “considers that candidates endorsed by the party have a legitimate chance to be elected in the general election in question”, the Commission in 2019 decided that it would consider a range of factors in order to assess the "recent political context, public opinion polls and previous general results", and concluded that its primary consideration under this criterion would be whether there was a reasonable chance of more than one candidate from that party being elected.
In setting participation criteria for the 44th general election, the Commission concluded that in order to be invited by the Commission to participate in the leaders' debates, a leader of a political party had to meet one of the following criteria:
(i): on the date the general election is called, the party is represented in the House of Commons by a Member of Parliament who was elected as a member of that party; or
(ii): the party's candidates for the most recent general election received at that election at least 4% of the number of valid votes cast; or
(iii): five days after the date the general election is called, the party receives a level of national support of at least 4%, determined by voting intention, and as measured by leading national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations' most recently publicly-reported results.
On August 16, 2021, the Commission made public how it would apply criterion (iii).
On August 21, 2021, the Commission issued its decision on the application of the participation criteria and invited five party leaders to participate in its debates.
B. Consultations by the Commission for the 45th general election criteria
In order to determine the debate participation criteria for the 45th general election, the Commission undertook reviews and consultations on the subject of debate participation criteria.
First, the Commission reviewed earlier consultations undertaken by the Commission before and after the 43rd general election (2019) and 44th general election (2021).
Second, the Commission undertook new consultations with registered political parties in Canada. On June 4th, 2024, the Commission sought views from each of the 17 political parties that were registered with Elections Canada on that date, and provided until July 5th, 2024, to provide submissions. The Commission received submissions from the Bloc Quebecois, the Conservative Party of Canada, the Green Party of Canada, the Liberal Party of Canada, the New Democratic Party of Canada and the People’s Party of Canada.Endnote *
Third, the Commission contacted 30 debate organizers in North America, Europe and internationally and asked what participation criteria they used for inclusion in their debates, when those criteria were adopted, and how many candidates were invited to their most recent debates. Many of the countries invited all political parties to their debates. Others had criteria based on past electoral performance and current political support.
Fourth, the Commission commissioned a report from Peter Loewen, who at the time was co-investigator head of the 2019 and 2021 Canada Election Study, and Director of the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy at the University of Toronto. The questions that Dr. Loewen was asked to answer were: Are small parties becoming more common? How long do they typically last for? And how are they typically treated within leaders’ debates? The report was largely inconclusive on the longevity of small parties. Dr. Loewen said: “Small parties do occasionally emerge but are not ever-present. When they rise up, they have a high probability of retreating after a few elections. It is not the norm for small parties to win seats in the Canadian Parliament, but it is not rare either, having happened in one third of elections.”
Finally, the Commission consulted with the Commission’s Polling Advisory Group and Commission’s Advisory Board. The Advisory Board’s role is to provide advice to the Commission and ensure that the leaders’ debates reflect the public interest, as set out in the 2018 OIC.
- The Polling Advisory Group comprises the following individuals:
- Richard Johnston, University of British Columbia
- André Blais, Université de Montréal
- Claire Durand, Université de Montréal
- Peter Loewen, University of Toronto and Cornell University
- Laura Stephenson, Western University
- Daniel Rubenson, Toronto Metropolitan University
- Allison Harell, Université du Québec à Montréal
- The Advisory Board comprises the following individuals:
- Dr. Chad Gaffield: Distinguished Professor, University of Ottawa, former President of the Royal Society of Canada
- Deborah Grey: Former Reform MP, first female Leader of the Opposition
- Jean LaRose: President & CEO, Dadan Sivunivut Inc. and Former Chief Executive Officer, Aboriginal Peoples Television Network (APTN)
- Megan Leslie: President and Chief Executive Officer, World Wildlife Fund Canada, former Deputy Leader of the Official Opposition (NDP)
- The Honourable John P. Manley: Former Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, Liberal Cabinet Minister and former President and Chief Executive Officer of Business Council of Canada
- Louise Otis: President of the Administrative Tribunal of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and President of the Administrative Tribunal of the Organization Treaty of Atlantic North (NATO)
- Abdullah Snobar: Executive Director, DMZ and Chief Executive Officer of DMZ Ventures & Zone Startups
A review of these consultations and submissions revealed the following themes:
- There is no consensus on specific participation criteria. However, there is unanimous support to establish criteria that would include some registered political parties and exclude others.
- Stakeholder reaction and post-debate consultations in 2021 indicated satisfaction with the 2021 criteria. The participation criteria were widely accepted as clear, simple, and objective. Many believed the 2021 criteria were appropriate and provided useful reference for future elections.
- Some stakeholders were in favour of maintaining the 2021 criteria, and some had differing views, captured below.
- Canada is a parliamentary democracy and must represent on the debate stages not just leaders who have a chance of becoming Prime Minister but also leaders of parties that have a chance of electing members to the House of Commons and have an impact on public policy.
- Canada has a history of both national and regional political parties, and debate participation criteria should aim to take both into account.
- Debate participation criteria should not exclusively require past electoral success; instead, the criteria must also allow for the possibility of the emergence of new political parties.
- Debate participation criteria should capture the current political landscape and ensure that the parties represented on the debate stage are a viable choice for Canadians.
- Results from the previous general election have historically been one of the participation criteria for debates in Canada. There remains support for the idea that historical data should be considered, but the Commission was asked to consider if parties should be able to qualify for the debates based on historical data alone.
- The Commission was asked to consider whether historical data should be based on a demonstrated historical record, i.e., evidence of past electoral success in terms of the number of elected MPs.
- On one hand, the Commission heard that electoral results are more useful than polls because a vote is more concrete than voting intention. But, on the other hand, the Commission was discouraged from relying on only historical data because voting results from the previous election may not be an accurate or appropriate indicator of a party’s current strength, current electability, and current viability.
- The Commission was encouraged to consider not only criteria that recognize realized and potential for electoral success, but also the sustainability and continued viability of a party. The Commission heard a variety of suggestions, including:
- Having no participation criteria based on past performance or historical data;
- Having one single participation criterion based on current voting intention;
- Adding a criterion based on whether the party is running candidates in a significant number of ridings (which stakeholders said demonstrates organizational strength and is an important way for a party to show nation-wide viability).
- There was consensus that the polling window used to measure current polling intention should be moved as close to the debates as possible, without affecting the ability of the Commission and the debates producer to organize effective debates.
IV. Discussion and Analysis
A. Guiding Principles
The Commission is guided by the mandate set out in the 2018 OIC. This includes the following provisions:
Preamble: "it is desirable that leaders' debates be effective, informative and compelling and benefit from the participation of the leaders who have the greatest likelihood of becoming Prime Minister or whose political parties have the greatest likelihood of winning seats in Parliament";
Preamble: "it is desirable that leaders' debates be organized using clear, open and transparent participation criteria";
Section 3(d): "the decisions regarding the organization of the leaders' debates, including those respecting participation criteria, are made publicly available in a timely manner"; and
Section 4: "the Leaders' Debates Commission is to be guided by the pursuit of the public interest and by the principles of independence, impartiality, credibility, democratic citizenship, civic education, inclusion and cost-effectiveness."
In 2021, the Commission developed a series of guiding principles to establish the participation criteria for the leaders’ debates in the 44th general election. These principles were drawn from the OIC, historical application of debate participation criteria in Canada and in other countries, and inputs reviewed from consultations.
Those four guiding principles were that the criteria should, to the greatest extent possible:
- be simple;
- be clear;
- be objective; and
- allow for the participation of leaders of political parties that have the greatest likelihood of winning seats in the House of Commons.
In setting the criteria for the 45th general election, the Commission would add the following guiding principles, that the criteria should also, to the greatest extent possible:
- be measurable; and
- serve the public interest and the voting public by ensuring the leaders invited on the debate stage represent a current picture of the country’s political forces at play in the 45th general election.
The Commission has added these two guiding principles for the following reasons.
First, in order for the participation criteria to be simple, clear and objective, they should also be measurable, meaning quantifiable. In previous elections, debate organizers have measured public support based on a variety of factors. Some of these factors, such as “presence in daily political conversation”, cannot be easily measured because they are not quantifiable. The Commission believes that the participation criteria themselves should not only be clear, so that the party knows what they are; but that the evidence required to satisfy the criteria should be measurable, so that each party knows how the Commission will measure whether or not the party has satisfied the criteria.
Second, debates are about serving the public interest and responding to the needs of the voters by helping them make an informed choice at the ballot box. The Commission believes that debate participation criteria should capture the political landscape at the time of the general election. This is fitting with its mandate to organize leaders debates that are “effective, informative and compelling and benefit from the participation of the leaders who have the greatest likelihood of becoming Prime Minister or whose political parties have the greatest likelihood of winning seats in Parliament".
B. Engagement of protections under the Charter
The Commission acknowledges its decision in setting the participation criteria may engage protections under the rights to freedom of expression and the right vote protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
Fundamental freedoms
2 Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
Democratic rights of citizens
3 Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.
As set out in the Commission’s 2021 decision, freedom of expression and the right to vote are engaged by the setting of participation criteria for both the leaders of the political parties and for voters. Freedom of expression protects not only the individual who speaks the message, but also the recipient. If political parties are excluded, their freedom of expression is engaged. The rights of voters as recipients of their message and their rights to effectively be informed through the debates is also engaged.
These rights and values must be balanced against the Commission's mandate which, as set out in the 2018 OIC, is to design debates that are "effective, informative, and compelling and benefit from the participation of the leaders who have the greatest likelihood of becoming Prime Minister or whose political parties have the greatest likelihood of winning seats in Parliament."
In 2021, the Commission interpreted this mandate to have two related parts. First, the Commission must invite the leaders of political parties who have the greatest likelihood of winning seats in Parliament or whose leaders have the greatest likelihood of becoming Prime Minister. Second, the Commission must design debates that are effective, informative, and compelling to assist the voters in making an informed decision about how to vote. The Commission continues to agree with this interpretation of its mandate.
As in 2021, the issue for the Commission is how to set the threshold or limit on participation that best fulfills the mandate to ensure that Canadians are informed about the political parties that are most likely to be elected and therefore contribute to public policy debate in the House of Commons while at the same time ensuring that the Charter protections at issue of both the voters and the leaders are protected to the greatest extent possible given the Commission’s mandate. The Commission has considered these values in setting the participation criteria for the 45th general election based on the factors set out below and will return to its analysis of balancing below.
C. Relevant Factors
In 2021, the Commission identified the following two factors as relevant to identifying political parties that may be eligible to participate in the leaders' debates:
- Historical record of political party support: should indicators of a political party's history, such as its past election results, be a criterion; if so, what is the appropriate threshold and what evidence should be used; and
- Current and future information on political party support: should indicators of a political party's popularity and relevance, and its potential for future electoral support by winning seats in the House of Commons, be a criterion; if so, what is the appropriate threshold and what evidence should be used.
The Commission remains of the view that both of these factors are relevant and that debate participation criteria should measure both historical record and current and future electoral support. Although a party’s historical record is backward-looking, having a seat in the House of Commons also provides evidence of the party’s current relevance, which is most important in determining debate participation.
Based on its consultations and analysis, the Commission would add a third relevant factor, as follows:
- Viability: should a party need to demonstrate that it is a viable option for Canadians in the next federal general election; if so what objective, and measurable, evidence should be used.
Although viability is interrelated with a party’s historical record and current and future electoral support, the Commission is of the view, as further discussed below, that it should also be measured as a separate element to augment the criteria aimed at measuring the other factors.
In addition, the Commission considered whether a political party should be required to demonstrate that it meets criteria for one, two, or all three of these elements. In 2021, the Commission decided that a party need only meet one of the three criteria, which measured historical record and current or future support. For the 45th general election, the Commission is of the view, as further discussed below, that the participation criteria should focus on measuring current indicators of party electability and viability. Requiring parties to meet two of the three criteria set out below will require all parties to meet a threshold of electability and viability, while ensuring that emerging and regional parties have a path to inclusion in the debates if they are able to demonstrate that they meet the objectives of the leaders’ debates.
1. Historical record of political party support
The Commission remains of the view the participation criteria for the 45th general election should include a criterion that measures historical political party support.
Elected member in the House of Commons
The Commission is of the view that the fact that the party has an elected member in the House of Commons remains a relevant and appropriate criterion for participation in the leaders’ debates, for three reasons.
First, this approach is consistent with the historical application of debate participation criteria in Canada.
The historical ability of political parties to elect candidates to the House of Commons is widely accepted and has been a central tenet of participation criteria since the very first debates in 1968. It was used by the consortium of broadcasters that organized debates in every election; it was included as criterion (i) in the 2018 OIC that created the Leaders’ Debates Commission; and it was criterion (i) in the Commission’s 2021 participation criteria.
Second, the Commission is of the view that having an elected MP in the House of Commons is relevant to the Commission’s mandate in the OIC to ensure participation of the leaders who have the greatest likelihood of becoming Prime Minister or whose political parties have the greatest likelihood of winning seats in Parliament. Electing a Member of Parliament is the best measure of proof that the party is electable.
Third, the Commission is also of the view that having an elected MP in the House of Commons at the time the election is called gives a party a different status than parties who have not shown the ability to elect candidates, which is relevant to assessing current party relevance and viability. A party with a current Member of Parliament has the ability to contribute to current public policymaking and have relevance in the national debate. The MP can vote on legislation, sit on committees whose function is to study legislation, demand accountability from the government and consult experts and interest groups on policy options.
For the reasons above, the Commission continues to be of the view that one criterion should look at whether a party has elected one or more MPs under its banner on the date an election is called.
In terms of the threshold of number of MPs, the Commission continues to be of the view that a threshold of one MP is sufficient. This is past accepted practice, it is the minimum threshold that can be applied in terms of seats won, and it can be achieved by both national and regional parties.
4% of valid votes in the previous general election
The Commission also considered whether a party that receives 4% of the valid votes in the previous election should qualify for the debates in the following election, as was the case in 2021. In 2021, the Commission said that a political party's historical record should be recognized if it can demonstrate a degree of electoral success even if that does not translate into the election of an MP under its banner.
Based on the feedback received in its consultations for the 45th general election, the Commission concludes that, while historical data should be considered, voting results from the previous election which did not result in the election of an MP should not be relied on as this may not be an accurate or appropriate indicator of a party’s current strength, current electability, and current viability. Receiving 4% of the valid votes in the previous election is not a predictor of potential electability or support in the current election. It therefore does not illustrate that the party has “the greatest likelihood of winning seats in Parliament” in the current election. The Commission has a responsibility to represent on the debate stage, the leaders of the parties that are relevant for voters at the time of the general election.
Although the Commission believes that parties with no representation in the House of Commons should have a path for qualification in leaders’ debates, this path should be based on forward-looking criteria in terms of political support and viability, as described below.
2. Current and future information on political party support
The Commission concluded in 2021 that public opinion polling that measures voting intention was an appropriate metric to determine party support. The Commission established a criterion based on a threshold of 4% voting intention nationally, which was intended to be simple, clear and objective while capturing the voting intention of significant emerging parties as well as regional parties.
Based on its consultations and review, the Commission continues to be of the view that current and future information on political party support should be considered in the participation criteria for the 45th general election, and that a threshold of at least 4% of national support, determined by voting intention, and as measured by leading national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations' most recently publicly-reported result, remains a valid criterion.
3. Party Viability
We understand viability to mean the ability of a party to not just exist, but to have the potential and capability to effectively compete on Election Day. In order for a political party to be viable, a sufficient number of Canadians need to want to vote for a party and a sufficient number of Canadians need to be able to vote for that party on Election Day.
Viability has been relevant to the participation criteria since before the Commission was created in 2018. Before then, debates had been traditionally organized by a broadcast consortium. Nearly all the criteria that the broadcast consortium had used were directed at party viability: running candidates in all or nearly all constituencies, having a presence in daily political conversation, having a fully developed platform and having an identified party leader are all ways to illustrate viability. As noted above, having MPs in the House of Commons also demonstrates party viability to some extent by virtue of participation in and contribution to current policymaking.
Having concluded that the participation criteria should measure viability as well as electability the Commission considered what would be a simple, clear and objective criterion to measure viability.
The Commission agrees with the suggestion for measuring viability that emerged from consultations that political parties that are able to endorse candidates in 90% of federal ridings illustrate that they have the necessary organizational strength to wage a political campaign and offer voters a viable electoral option nation-wide.
The Commission believes this to be an appropriate measure of viability for the following reasons. First, analysis of past elections illustrates that the number of candidates that a party endorses is related to its vote share on Election Day. Second, past electoral records indicate that when national parties are viable, they are able to endorse candidates in at least 90% of federal ridings. Finally, a similar criterion has been used in past elections. Both the 2015 and 2019 participation criteria included a similar criterion. In the 2015 participation criteria include a criterion that a party “intended to run candidates in all or nearly all constituencies”. In 2019, criterion (iii) was: the Commissioner considers that the party intends to endorse candidates in at least 90% of electoral districts in the general election in question.
Having concluded that viability is an important consideration, the Commission considered whether a political party should be required to satisfy one, two or three of its participation criteria.
D. Two of three participation criteria required
The Commission considered whether it should require political parties to satisfy only one criterion, two of three criteria, or all three criteria. After review, the Commission decided that parties must satisfy two of the three participation criteria for the 45th general election. Here are the two reasons why:
- By requiring parties to satisfy two of its three participation criteria, rather than only one, a party cannot rely on its historical record alone, but must demonstrate an additional criterion that measures viability;
- By requiring parties to satisfy two of its three participation criteria, rather than all three, the Commission is allowing for the inclusion of parties that have no representation in the House of Commons, including new and emerging parties; and the inclusion of regional parties, so long as that party has “the greatest likelihood of winning seats in Parliament”, as measured by criteria (i) and (ii).
1. Historical data alone is not sufficient
Although the Commission concluded that historical support remains a relevant consideration, its view is that a political party should not be invited to participate in the debates based on historical record alone.
In elections prior to 2019, political parties were generally required to have both a historical record and indications of current or future support. However, the criteria provided to the Commission in the 2018 OIC had no such requirement. Nor did the participation criteria set by the Commission in 2021. In both 2019 and 2021, the debate participation criteria allowed parties to qualify for the debates on their historical record alone.
During consultations, the Commission was asked to consider whether a political party should be able to qualify for a debate based solely on their electoral performance in the last general election.
Although the Commission remains of the view that historical success is relevant to electability and viability and should be taken into account, it also considered the limitations of using a demonstrated historical record as the only predictor of future electoral success. Political environments are inherently unstable. Political party fortunes fluctuate greatly from one election to another.
The examples below illustrate how relying on historical data alone to qualify for debate participation may not be sufficient.
In the 1988 general election the Progressive Conservative Party elected 169 MPs and formed a majority government. The very next general election, in 1993 the Progressive Conservative Party elected only two members to the House of Commons and lost its official party status.
In the 2008 general election the Liberal Party of Canada elected 77 members. Three years later in 2011, it elected only 34 MPs to the House of Commons.
There have also been political parties who have elected MPs to the House of Commons, who ceased to exist in the very next general election.
In 1997 the Reform Party of Canada elected 60 members and formed the official opposition. By the time the next general election was held, in 2000, the Reform Party no longer existed. A new party emerged: the Canadian Alliance. The Canadian Alliance elected 66 members in the 2000 election. But by the time the next general election arrived, in 2004, the Canadian Alliance no longer existed. Neither did the Progressive Conservative Party. A new party – the Conservative Party of Canada – was created and they won 99 seats in the 2004 election, becoming the official opposition party in a minority Parliament.
In the 2024 Provincial Election in British Columbia, the Conservative Party elected 44 MLAs with 43.27% of the vote. Four years earlier, the party commanded less than two per cent of the vote. If debate participation criteria for the most recent provincial election in British Columbia were based on historical data alone, the leader of the BC liberal party would have been invited, despite the fact that the party did not exist under the BC Liberal banner in the 2024 election and did not campaign in the 2024 BC Provincial Election.
Given this analysis, the Commission considered whether parties should be permitted to qualify for the debates based solely on their results in the last general election, and whether this is a sufficient measure of current electability and viability in the upcoming general election.
Based on its consultations, Commission concludes that although the past electoral performance of a party is relevant, should not be the only deciding factor. A party that holds a seat in the House of Commons should be required to meet at least one other criterion that demonstrates forward-looking electability and viability. Accordingly, parties should be required to meet two of the three criteria.
2. New or emerging parties and regional parties should have a path to participation
Although a party should be required to meet more than one criterion to be invited to participate, it should not be required to meet all three to ensure that new and emerging parties and regional parties have a path to participation. The two of three criteria will not exclude a party with no representation in the House of Commons or regional or new emerging parties, so long as that party can show that it has “the greatest likelihood of winning seats in Parliament”, as measured by criterion (i) and (ii). Put another way, criterion (iii) is not a mandatory criterion that all parties must meet. If a regional party can satisfy both criterion (i) and criterion (ii) they should not also need to satisfy criterion (iii). A regional party who runs candidates in only 25% of federal ridings and is still able to obtain at least 4% of the number of valid votes cast in a general election illustrates a high degree of electability and viability.
There is a long tradition of including in the leaders’ debates political parties that aspire to represent a region of Canada or whose support does not extend nationally in federal election debates. The Créditistes, and Bloc Québécois are examples of parties with regional bases that have been included in debates because of a significant representation in the House of Commons, the ability to hold the balance of power in a minority government and substantial support in voting intentions. Canada has a history of both national and regional political parties, and debate participation criteria should aim to take both into account. A regional party that does not meet the national viability criterion (iii) will not be excluded from participation so long as that party has “the greatest likelihood of winning seats in Parliament”, as measured by criteria (i) and (ii).
Analysis of the Bloc Quebecois’ electoral record, for example, illustrates it has received at least 4% of the vote in the general election every year since its inception.
Election | Bloc Quebecois % of vote | # of MPs elected |
1993 | 13.5% | 54 |
1997 | 10.7% | 44 |
2000 | 10.7% | 38 |
2004 | 12.4% | 54 |
2006 | 10.5% | 51 |
2008 | 10.0% | 49 |
2011 | 6.0% | 4 |
2015 | 4.7% | 10 |
2019 | 7.6% | 32 |
2021 | 7.6% | 32 |
Source: https://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/1867-present.html |
The Reform Party is often thought of as a regional party, but they ran candidates in 70% of federal ridings in 1993 and 75% of ridings in 1997.
Election | Reform Party % of vote | # of MPs elected |
1993 | 18.7% | 52 |
1997 | 19.4% | 60 |
Source: https://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/1867-present.html |
Based on this analysis, the Commission concludes that in order to be invited to participate in the debates, a party must demonstrate a sufficient level of electability and viability, and the criteria must allow for national, regional and emerging political parties as well as parties with no representation in the House of Commons. All must demonstrate electability and viability and meet two of the three criteria.
E. Process for evaluating criteria (ii) & (iii)
Criterion (i)
In administering criterion (i), the Commission will make the determination on the date the general election is called as this decision must be made before Parliament is dissolved.
Criterion (ii)
In administering criterion (ii), the Commission will select the latest published public opinion polls based on the quality of the methodology employed, the reputation of the polling organizations, and the frequency and timeliness of the polling conducted. The Commission may take professional advice to assist in selecting the leading national public opinion polls to be used in applying the criterion and will identify the selected polling organizations at the time the criterion is applied.
In terms of timing, in the Commission’s consultations for the 45th general election, there was general agreement that the participation criteria should aim to use the latest polls possible as a basis for determining levels of support, while still ensuring that a range of polling firms' data are used and averaged. The Commission was encouraged to move the polling window as close to the debates as possible after the issuing of the writs, so long as it does not affect the ability of the Commission and the debates producer to organize effective debates.
The Commission was also encouraged to tie the polling window to the debate date or Election Day, rather than on the date the general election is called, so that the length of time between the polling window and the debate is more consistent and less dependent on the length of the campaign period.
According to the Canada Elections Act, the campaign period must be at least 37 days and no more than 51 days.
The variable length of campaigns affects when and how the Commission should make its determination for criterion (ii). For example: if the Commission were to make its determination for criterion (ii) five days after the date the general election is called, the polling window might land at the right time during a 37-day campaign, but it would be too early in a 51-day campaign. Tying the polling window to the date the general election is called impacts the ability of the Commission to use the most recent polls to make its determination of criterion (ii).
Tying the polling window to Election Day, rather than the date the general election is called, ensures that the polling data is as close to the debate as possible.
The Commission also considered tying the polling window to debate date. But the debate date is variable, whereas the Election Day is not.
Where the general election follows the dissolution of a minority government, the debate date cannot be chosen until after the general election is called. Selecting the debate date can take several days, as the Commission and the debate producers need, consider religious and other holidays, and consider which day and time ensures the debates have the greatest reach and impact with voters.
The Commission’s goal is to make debates reliable and stable, and tying the polling window to the debate date would undermine this goal, as the debate date is a moving target during the first few days of an election campaign in a minority government context.
Given this, the Commission concludes 28 days before the date of the general election (Election Day) is an appropriate day to make the determination on voting intention. The Commission believes that this timeframe aligns with the OIC and the Commission's guiding principles. It balances the need for the Commission to use the most up to date evidence possible in order to assess whether political parties satisfy the debate participation criteria; and the need to ensure that the debates producer has sufficient time to produce a debate of high quality, as required by the OIC, and that the political parties can properly prepare for the debates in order to ensure they are informative for Canadians.
Criterion (iii)
The Commission is cognizant that it must have a basis to determine whether, according to criterion (iii), a party has endorsed candidates in 90% of federal ridings.
The Commission believes its assessment should be objective and not based on subjective factors, and that the onus of proof should rest with the party and not the Commission. Accordingly, political parties intending to rely on this criterion will be expected to submit to the Commission a list of candidates they have endorsed in federal ridings no later than 28 days before the date of the general election. This list must come from the chief agent of the political party responsible for reporting the party’s endorsements to Elections Canada. The list must be sent by email to Executive Director Michel Cormier at michel.cormier@debates-debats.ca no later than midnight Pacific Time 28 days before the date of the general election. Given that debates are held well in advance of Election Day, parties are not required to demonstrate that those candidates have been formally nominated with Elections Canada.
The Commission will then issue invitations to leaders of those political parties that meet debate participation criteria 27 days before the general election.
Timeline
Day | Activity |
Date the general election is called | Commission makes its determination on criterion (i) |
28 days before Election Day | Polling results are reviewed by the Commission’s Polling Advisory Group for criterion (ii). Political parties intending to rely on criterion (iii) submit to the Commission a list of candidates they have endorsed in federal ridings. This list must come from the chief agent of the political party responsible for reporting the party’s endorsements to Elections Canada. The list must be sent by email to Executive Director Michel Cormier at michel.cormier@debates-debats.ca no later than midnight Pacific Time. |
27 days before Election Day | Commission makes its determination on which political parties qualify for the debates, and issues invitations to party leaders. |
F. Proportional balancing between the Commission’s mandate and Charter rights and values
In the Commission’s view, the participation criteria proportionately balance Charter protections engaged, namely voters’ and parties’ rights to freedom of expression and democratic rights, including the right to vote, to ensure that they are limited no more than is necessary given the Commission’s mandate, which as set out above has two components:
- inviting the leaders of political parties who have the greatest likelihood of winning seats in Parliament or whose leaders have the greatest likelihood of becoming Prime Minister; and
- ensuring that the debates are effective, informative, and compelling to assist the voters in making an informed decision about how to vote.
Although not all leaders of political parties will be invited to participate in the debates, the Commission continues to be of the view that including all the leaders would be inconsistent with its mandate to invite the leaders of political parties with the greatest likelihood of winning seats or having their leaders become Prime Minister. As set out in the 2021 decision, including all leaders would also disproportionately impact the Commission’s mandate to ensure that the debates are informative and effective, given that having too many participants would reduce the utility and appeal of the debate to the voting public, and may also result in major political parties choosing not to participate.
For the reasons set out above, the Commission is of the view that the participation criteria it has set for the 45th general election are reasonably necessary given the Commission’s mandate. They ensure that both established and emerging parties have a path to qualifying for participation in the debates, as well as regional parties so long as they can meet the required thresholds of electability and viability, as interpreted by the Commission. The leaders of parties that do not meet these thresholds are not included because they do not have the greatest likelihood of winning seats or having their leaders become Prime Minister and including them would detract from the informativeness and effectiveness of the debates.
V. Conclusion
In order to be invited by the Commission to participate in the leaders' debates, a leader of a registered political party must meet two of the following criteria:
(i): on the date the general election is called, the party is represented in the House of Commons by a Member of Parliament who was elected as a member of that party.
(ii): 28 days before the date of the general election, the party receives a level of national support of at least 4%, determined by voting intention, and as measured by leading national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations' most recently publicly-reported results.
(iii): 28 days before the date of the general election, the party has endorsed candidates in at least 90% of federal ridings.
When examined together, the Commission concludes that inviting leaders of parties that meet two of these three criteria will ensure the participation of those leaders who have the greatest likelihood of becoming Prime Minister or whose political parties have the greatest likelihood of winning seats in Parliament. The criteria are simple, clear, and objective and measurable. They balance realized and potential for electoral success. They measure both electability and viability and they serve the public interest and the voting public by ensuring the leaders invited on the debate stage represent a current picture of the country’s political forces at play in the 45th general election.