Debates - Democratic Exercises Serving the Voting Public
A report on the Leaders' Debates Commission 2025 federal election experience

---

Debates - Democratic exercises serving the voting public

Message from the Executive Director and Acting Debates Commissioner

In many parts of the world, democracy is under increasing pressure, undermined by disinformation, polarization and authoritarianism. According to its 2025 index, Freedom House reported that political rights have deteriorated in at least 60 countries.^{Footnote 1}

Canada, by comparison, is doing better. Its democracy is one of the strongest in the world. Yet, there are warning signs. For example, while The Economist Intelligence Unit’s 2025 Democracy Index rated Canada as one of only three countries in the Americas with a full democracy, it cautioned that the country was starting to experience political culture wars similar to those in the United States.^{Footnote 2} Canada is not immune to political polarization, disinformation or social media that exposes people to false information.

In this context, political debates during election campaigns remain one of the few opportunities for Canadians to hear from their leaders in a live and unfiltered environment. These debates enable voters across the country to access the same information simultaneously, allowing them to make more informed electoral choices. Polling done for the 2025 federal election for the Leaders’ Debates Commission confirms how important Canadians believe debates to be. Eighty-seven per cent of respondents say debates are important for democracy, 87 per cent expect leaders’ debates to be organized in federal elections and almost 90 per cent expect invited party leaders to participate.

The Leaders’ Debates Commission has been responsible for organizing leaders’ debates in the last three federal elections. Guided by feedback from the previous two election cycles, the Commission introduced several key changes in 2025, replacing the panel of journalists with a single moderator, adopting a simpler and more flexible format that encouraged leader-to-leader exchanges and simplifying the set design to focus attention on the discussion itself.

The results confirm that this was the right approach. The 2025 leaders’ debates were considered the best in decades, with both the format and moderation receiving broad acclaim. The Commission’s post-debate consultations with political parties, experts and other stakeholders reveal widespread approval of the debate format and its moderation. Focus group studies conducted for the Commission after the debates showed that viewers were highly satisfied with the debates. As for ratings, not only did more people watch the debates in 2025 than in 2021 and 2019, but they also watched for longer periods. More than 19 million Canadians tuned in to watch the two debates in 2025, reflecting a strong level of engagement.

As with every debate cycle, opportunities for improvement remain. Following the 2021 leaders’ debates, the Commission identified three priorities: moderation, format and production. Over the subsequent years, it engaged in extensive consultation, research and planning to address these areas — and the results in 2025 reflect substantial progress. However, new challenges emerged in 2025, particularly related to participation criteria and media accreditation. Based on post-debate consultations and analysis, the Commission has developed practical recommendations in both areas for consideration by a future Commissioner. These recommendations are outlined in this report.

Over its three mandates, the Commission has steadily improved the debate environment in Canada. Leaders’ debates are now predictable, transparent, and accessible. In the past three federal elections, debates were held in both official languages, all qualified leaders participated, and they were broadcast across multiple platforms in various languages. Participation criteria were transparent, and both the format and moderation were refined to better serve Canadians.

This report includes specific, concrete and actionable recommendations for improving the next debates, based on the 2025 experience. While decisions will ultimately rest with the next Commissioner, these findings are intended to inform and support their strategic planning.

The Commission would like to thank all individuals and organizations that took the time to participate in consultations. Their views and advice, along with those of our Advisory Board and other expert panels on which the Commission relies, will contribute to improving the debates and ensure that Canadians have the most helpful political information available to make an informed choice at the ballot box.

Michel Cormier
Executive Director and Acting Debates Commissioner
Leaders’ Debates Commission

Section 1. Implementing the Commission’s Mandate

The April 2025 federal election marked the third election cycle in which the Commission organized leaders’ debates. As in 2019 and 2021, the Commission was mandated to organize two debates, one in each of the official languages.

This report assesses the effectiveness of the Commission in fulfilling its mandate and core responsibility to organize the 2025 leaders’ debates.

Following each election cycle, the Commission conducts a thorough assessment of its experience. This includes examining its contribution to the Canadian debate ecosystem, evaluating whether the debates served the public interest and identifying areas for improvement to guide a future Commissioner. As part of this evaluation, the Commission also reflects on whether its mandate, role, or structure should evolve to better serve Canadians in future elections.

Context

Framing the environment in which the Leaders’ Debates Commission came into existence remains a useful reference for examining the 2025 leaders’ debates.

The decision to create the Commission in 2018 stemmed from the 2015 federal election campaign, which failed to produce a widely viewed, nationally distributed English-language debate. That experience highlighted the risks of relying solely on negotiations between political parties and broadcasters — a process that often resulted in uncertainty and limited public reach.

By mandating an independent Commission to organize two leaders' debates, one in each official language, the Government aimed to reduce those risks and establish a more predictable, reliable and inclusive debate process. The goal was to ensure debates prioritized the public interest over political negotiation.

Article 4 of its 2018 Order in Council (OIC) defines the Commission's role in the following terms: "In fulfilling its mandate, 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."^{Footnote 3}

Since its inception, the Commission has contributed to strengthening Canada’s democratic infrastructure by providing greater stability and predictability to the leaders’ debates. Federal debates have been held in every general election since 2019. The uncertainty that once surrounded the debates has largely disappeared; they are now a standard feature of every campaign. All invited party leaders participated in the debates in 2019, 2021 and 2025. The process is now transparent and no longer dependent on ad hoc negotiations. In doing so, the Commission has helped create a sense of certainty in a fragile and evolving media ecosystem — important progress for Canada’s democratic life.

The leaders’ debates organized by the Commission have increased engagement from Canadians, achieving historic levels of viewership and accessibility. Never before have federal election debates drawn in Canadian audiences in such significant numbers as in 2019, 2021 and 2025. Enhancing accessibility over the last three election cycles has ensured that debates reach as many Canadians as possible, while also enabling voters to watch, listen to or read the debates in a language and format that is accessible to them. This has fostered engagement in communities on the margins of political involvement and deepened adhesion to these democratic exercises and the democratic process.

Throughout its three mandates, the Commission has worked to serve the public interest, recognizing that leaders’ debates are a public trust — an essential democratic institution that belongs to the Canadian public.

2019 and 2021 experiences

In fulfilling its mandate, the Commission follows an iterative process that builds upon lessons learned from previous election cycles. Insights from post-debate consultations and stakeholder feedback in 2019 and 2021 directly informed the Commission’s approach to the 2025 debates.

The 2019 experience laid the groundwork for several foundational aspects of the Commission’s mandate. The November 2020 OIC^{Footnote 4} amended the Commission’s mandate to include setting the participation criteria, final approval of the format and production of the leaders’ debates, while respecting journalistic independence and ensuring the debates are available in languages other than French and English, with special attention to Canada’s Indigenous languages.

After the 2021 leaders’ debates, consultations focused on improving the format and moderation. The 2021 debates drew significant criticism from stakeholders, and the Commission acknowledged that the debates fell short of meeting voter expectations in terms of informing voters. Concerns centred on a cluttered, overly restrictive format that limited opportunities for leaders to express themselves or engage in meaningful exchanges. There was also a broad consensus that the number of journalists on stage detracted from the quality of the debates.

With each mandate, it is both customary and constructive for the Commission to refine its approach. This ongoing commitment to improvement remains central to its work and will continue to guide its future efforts.

The next section provides a detailed assessment of how the Commission delivered on its 2025 mandate. This evaluation will support the recommendations offered for a future Commissioner and any potential evolution of the Commission itself.

Section 2. Principal findings

To assess whether the Commission fulfilled its mandate and core responsibility of organizing leaders’ debates, it conducted a comprehensive review of the 2025 debates and engaged a wide range of stakeholders — both within Canada and internationally — to gather diverse perspectives. This approach builds upon the methodology established following the 2021 debates.

Consultations included discussions with debate moderators, television network executives, political parties and media associations. The Commission also engaged with experts in governance, public opinion research and journalism. Internationally, it participated in a symposium with professionals experienced in the production and organization of political debates, from whom valuable insights and input were sought.

Public feedback played a central role in this assessment. The Commission received more than 5,000 individual submissions from Canadians. It once again worked with the Consortium on Electoral Democracy (C-DEM) and the Canadian Election Study (CES) to survey Canadians on what makes successful debates. Collaborations also occurred with the team at the Media Ecosystem Observatory — an interdisciplinary initiative between McGill University and the University of Toronto that studies the health of media ecosystems — to survey the 2025 leaders’ debates.

This section seeks to provide a factual analysis of the 2025 experience, informed by this broad and inclusive consultation process.

2.1 Were the debates accessible and widely distributed?

The English-language and French-language debates were widely distributed. They were available on 34 television outlets, 10 radio networks and 60 digital streams, virtually guaranteeing their accessibility to all Canadians. The majority of distributors carried both the French and the English debate, with the interpretation language appropriate to their audience. Significant international interest in the debates was evident, with BBC News, C-SPAN, TV5 Monde, Eurovision and Reuters each bringing the debates to their respective audiences.

Each debate was available in French and English as well as 13 other languages, including five Indigenous languages, American Sign Language (ASL) and Langue des signes Québécoise (LSQ). Multilingual broadcaster OMNI TV provided interpretation into an additional six languages. Both debates were also available with closed captioning embedded in the broadcast signal and with described video.

According to public opinion research from the Consortium on Electoral Democracy (C-DEM) and the Canadian Election Study (CES) commissioned by the Commission, 43.7 per cent of Canadians watched at least one debate and 14.9 per cent watched both.

Viewership reached 35.8 per cent for the English-language debate and 22.5 per cent for the French-language debate. Over 12.4 million people in Canada tuned in to the English-language debate and 7 million watched or listened to the French-language debate^{Footnote 5}. Viewers who may have watched TVA’s French debate in previous years^{Footnote 6} tuned in to the Commission’s French debate in 2025. In the absence of a TVA-sponsored debate, the total audience for the Commission’s debate in French increased by 64% per cent, while the audience for the debate in English saw a substantial 21 per cent increase over 2021. Canadians recognize the importance of the debates in the electoral process.

Commisssion debate audience 2019-2025

	2019	2021	2025
English	14,219,000	10,273,926	12,423,204
French	5,023,435	4,282,628	7,024,984
Total	19,242,435	14,556,554	19,448,188

2.2 Were the debates effective, informative, compelling and organized in the public interest?

This question invites a multifaceted response, incorporating both subjective insights and objective analysis. To provide the most thorough response, this report draws on a blend of data points from stakeholder consultations and public responses to the public opinion research conducted for the Commission, which informs the analysis.

The most objective and measurable indicator for evaluating a debate's effectiveness is audience reach. In the three election cycles during which the Commission has organized debates, viewership has surpassed that of the 2015 and 2011 campaigns, attracting significantly more viewers than debates from previous elections.

In 2025, there was heightened interest, accompanied by steady audience levels and sustained engagement, reflecting a strong level of public engagement with the debates. Global broadcasts by international networks, such as BBC News and TV5 Monde, further expanded viewership beyond the currently available figures.

Public feedback sent to the Commission was positive, with Canadians describing the debates as excellent, effective and informative.

Citizens shared the following reflections on the debates:

• “I recognize the complexity of your task and appreciate your efforts to ensure accessible, informative, and fair discourse during this critical election period.”
• “Thank you for holding amazing debates. It was fantastic to listen to all the leaders.”
• “The debates were conducted with fairness and professionalism.”

Survey and focus group responses received by C-DEM and CES echoed the sentiment that the debates were well done and relevant to Canadians. In 2025, more Canadians viewed the entirety of the two-hour leaders’ debates than in 2021 — an indication of their compelling nature. Voters appreciated both the structure of the formats and the moderators’ neutrality, fairness and respectful treatment of the leaders.

While high viewership is important, it is not the sole measure of success. Debates are democratic exercises that belong to the voting public. Serving the public interest means helping voters make informed choices at the ballot box. They should foster an exchange of policy positions that sheds light on character and leadership abilities.

Following the 2021 debates, the Commission held consultations with over 50 debate organizers and experts in Canada and internationally. These conversations helped define the principles that would improve format and moderation. The resulting changes were clearly reflected in the 2025 cycle and ensured the debates better served voters.

Survey data from C-DEM and CES in 2025 confirms this. Canadians surveyed reported that their two primary goals for the 2025 election debates — understanding party policies and platforms and enabling informed voting decisions — had been achieved. Over 62 per cent of respondents said the debates exposed them to new ideas, finding them useful and valuable for Canadian society.

A clear majority also supported the approach taken by the Commission and the debates producer during this election cycle — namely, flexible time management, natural flow and open exchanges — favouring a format that allows leaders to complete their points and enables substantive discussions that highlight differences in policy positions.

Stakeholder feedback was equally strong. Those consulted unanimously agreed that the 2025 debates delivered for Canadians. The tone of the debates was widely described as substantive, civil and informative, making them both compelling to watch and valuable to the democratic process.

The debates also served the public interest from both organizational and production perspectives. They were transparently organized, with the debates producer selected through a public request for proposal (RFP) in line with government procurement rules. Delivery was also well within the contracted budget.

After the 2021 election, the Commission introduced the concept of “debate integrity”— a multidimensional goal encompassing participation criteria, reach, promotion, viewership, format, moderation, thematic relevance, accountability, accessibility and audience satisfaction. The Commission noted that for a debate to have integrity, each of these dimensions must be satisfied. Integrity implies the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and that overarching responsibility for the debates' success rests with the Commission.

By this standard, the 2025 debates were a success. Across all key dimensions — format, moderation, accessibility, thematic substance, reach, transparency, predictability and audience satisfaction — the Commission fulfilled its mandate and served the public interest. The debates were not only informative and compelling but also firmly rooted in democratic values.

2.3 Were debate invitations based on clear, open and transparent participation criteria?

Early in 2025, the Commission established its participation criteria for the debates. As in previous elections, these were made public and shared with political parties well in advance. On January 14 — more than three months before the election — the Commission published the criteria and publicly outlined its rationale for how they would be applied, to ensure that the public and stakeholders were informed of the reasoning behind the criteria.^{Footnote 7}

On March 7, the Commission released its rationale for how a registered political party could meet criterion (ii), on which polling data it would use to determine party eligibility and how the data would be analyzed.^{Footnote 8} The Commission offered follow-up briefings to political parties to ensure the participation criteria and their application were well understood.

The Commission’s decision on which party leaders met the criteria to be invited to the leaders’ debates was published on April 1, 2025, more than two weeks before the leaders’ debates.^{Footnote 9} The letters of invitation and the leaders’ responses were subsequently made public.

In the lead-up to the 2025 federal election, the Green Party of Canada was initially eligible to participate in the leaders’ debates, having met two of the three criteria set by the Commission. However, on April 9, when Elections Canada released the final list of confirmed candidates for the 45th general election, it included 232 candidates endorsed by the Green Party — well below the 309 required under the Commission’s rules to meet its third eligibility criterion.

On April 15, the Commission became aware of public comments made by Green Party co-leader Jonathan Pedneault stating that the party had made a strategic decision not to run a full slate of candidates. The Commission concluded that this strategic reduction in the number of candidates running was inconsistent with the Commission’s interpretation of party viability, which criterion (iii) was designed to measure. As a result, the Green Party's invitation to participate was rescinded on April 16.

The Green Party subsequently challenged the Commission’s decision to exclude it from the 2025 debates before the Federal Court.

Section 3. Beyond 2025

This section provides recommendations designed to enhance the mandate, role and structure of a future Commission. It explores how a future Commission might contribute to the continued improvement of debate production, consolidate progress to date, and — through collaboration with partners — identify opportunities to enhance efficiency and better align with the Commission’s mandate and core principle of serving the public interest.

First, it is important to assess what has been accomplished and determine which measures or adjustments may be appropriate to advance the Commission’s future mandate.

3.1 Format

In 2025, the French and English debate formats were widely praised as highly successful by the Canadian public, media and consulted stakeholders.

After the 2021 federal elections, the Commission conducted extensive consultations with more than 50 debate organizers — including moderators and former participants — from both within Canada and abroad, to understand their experiences, gather their perspectives and identify which formats and moderation principles produce the most effective and informative debates. This approach marked a new level of collaboration and reflection in Canadian debate planning. It guided the Commission in defining a clear direction for the 2025 debates, with the goal of better serving voters.

The request for proposal (RFP) for a debates producer — researched, written, and issued by the Commission in July 2024 — outlined the requirements for the next leaders’ debates and identified what would best serve the public interest:

• a simple format that encourages meaningful exchanges between the leaders, helps Canadians learn about their policy positions and party platforms and sheds light on the leaders' character;
• one moderator for each debate — an experienced journalist — with no other journalists or hosts on stage; and
• a simple and intimate set and production design that keeps the focus on the leaders and on the content of the debate.

The RFP also included a format template that set the foundational structure for the debates and identified key format principles for the debates producer. In 2025, the debates producer endorsed these principles. Close and constructive collaboration between the debates producer and the Commission strengthened the integrity of the process.

Media coverage of both debates focused on substance. Journalists noted that the format facilitated substantive policy discussions, provided leaders with space to express themselves, and offered voters a clearer basis for decision-making. Unlike in 2019 and 2021, the format faced minimal criticism. Journalists described the debates as civil, respectful, well-organized and highly effective. In particular, the English debate’s cordial closing received positive mention.

Journalists and pundits made the following observations:

• “The English debate was probably the best I’ve seen since the 1990s.”
• “These are two of the best federal debates I can remember in terms of the format and content.”
• “Both debates were engaging and provided voters with what is expected from this kind of exercise — especially the one in English on Thursday — excellent."
• It “gave Canadians a solid chance to review the applicants for the job.”

The public feedback to the Commission echoed the sentiments expressed by the media:

• “The debates were very helpful in my decision-making.”
• “I was pleased with the quality of the French and English language debates.”
• “I thought the debate was well managed & allowed the candidates to get their points across.”
• “It was substantive, largely respectful, and certainly very useful in clarifying the leaders’ respective positions.”
• “The debate was well-run with thoughtful questions and excellent pacing.”

There was broad consensus among stakeholders that the 2025 formats — simple and flexible — were the Commission’s most successful to date. Many noted that the Commission had effectively addressed the shortcomings of the 2019 and 2021 debates.

Post-debate consultations confirmed that the debate formats placed the spotlight on the leaders and the issues, enabling meaningful engagement that benefited voters.

Stakeholders noted that prioritizing overall fairness in time allocation for the leaders — rather than enforcing strict equal time — was successful, with moderators managing time effectively. The formats were easy to follow, and the natural flow and open exchanges were perceived as fair, balanced and effective. Stakeholders appreciated that leaders were able to express their views without being cut off mid-sentence or rushed to finish within a few seconds — a notable contrast from 2021. Minimal crosstalk also contributed to debates that were engaging and highly watchable.

Post-debate analysis revealed that Canadians also appreciated the dynamic and flexible format, as well as the respectful and interactive exchanges between the leaders.

Citizens who participated in the Consortium on Electoral Democracy (C-DEM) and the Canadian Election Study (CES) focus groups provided positive feedback on the structure and pacing. They valued the inclusion of closing statements in the English debate, which they described as a natural conclusion to the exercise.

Most respondents in the C-DEM and CES study believed that fact-checking should be included in election debates, a view also reflected in some public feedback. Individual broadcasters and distributors may consider this when preparing their coverage of future leaders’ debates.

A separate survey by the Media Ecosystem Observatory provided a positive evaluation of the debates. According to the poll, 88 per cent of respondents believed the debate time was fairly distributed among the leaders, 79 per cent felt the leaders had enough time to speak, and 68 per cent said the debates were useful for learning about the parties.

While some stakeholders and citizens appreciated the English debate segment, in which leaders questioned one another, others found it artificial and predictable.

In post-debate consultations, some stakeholders suggested adopting a unified format for both debates going forward to promote consistency, simplify production and ensure a similar experience for voters — especially since debates are typically held back-to-back.

Given the binary dynamic of the 2025 campaign, some stakeholders also recommended exploring a format specifically designed for leaders poised to form government.

3.2 Moderation

There was unanimous agreement among the public, media and stakeholders consulted that the moderation of both the French and English debates was highly effective. In 2025, the moderation was central to the success of the debates.

In its 2021 final report, the Commission signalled that future debates would likely move toward a single-moderator model — a shift supported by clear preferences expressed in the Canadian Election Study (CES) following the 2021 debates. Canadians favoured a single moderator, viewing this approach as more effective and conducive to better debate dynamics.

For the 2025 leaders’ debates, the Commission adopted this model. Each debate featured a single experienced journalist as moderator, with no other journalists present on stage. This was a departure from the established norms of Canadian debate organization. Traditionally, Canadian debates included a panel of journalists alongside a moderator to ensure the participation of multiple media organizations.

However, national and international consultations held prior to the 2025 debates revealed a clear consensus that a single moderator best served the public interest, enhancing the experience for both leaders and voters. Acting as an invisible referee, a single moderator can more effectively and easily manage time, facilitate discussion, elicit meaningful exchanges, assert authority and set a consistent tone for the debate. This model also makes it clear to both viewers and leaders on stage who is in charge —especially important in a debate with multiple participants.

To support this shift, the Commission developed formal moderator selection criteria for the first time since federal leaders’ debates began in 1968. These criteria, outlined in the 2024 request for proposal (RFP), defined the moderator’s role, responsibilities and essential attributes. The debates producer selected each moderator according to these criteria. This new approach reflected a significant evolution in how debates are planned and executed in Canada.

The results in 2025 validated the model. Both moderators were widely praised. Media coverage described them as experienced and effective at managing time, striking the right tone and keeping the debate focused on the leaders. Journalists highlighted how nearly all debate time was allocated to the leaders themselves and that interruptions were well-handled.

Feedback from the public was also favourable. Citizens wrote in with the following comments:

• “The moderators did an excellent job of ensuring we as Canadian citizens were able to hear from each candidate so we can make an informed decision.”
• “The moderators guided the discussion so Canadians could finally hear the candidates discuss their policies and opinions in more than a sound bite.”

The Media Ecosystem Observatory survey also revealed overwhelmingly positive responses. According to the poll, 82 per cent of respondents viewed a single moderator as effective, 86 per cent said the English debate was well moderated, and 82 per cent said the same of the French debate.

Interestingly, participants in the C-DEM and CES focus groups also commonly described an ideal moderator as a “referee”— someone who doesn’t dominate the debate, but keeps it focused on the issues, maintains a respectful tone and ensures the discussion is informative and useful for voters. In both debates, participants agreed that the moderators were experienced, neutral, asked appropriate questions and treated the leaders fairly and respectfully, allowing them to remain in the spotlight. “The moderator was exactly that. He was a moderator, didn't stand out. He was just good”, said a participant in the English focus group.

Post-debate consultations revealed strong satisfaction with having a single moderator for each debate and a broad consensus that selecting experienced moderators was the appropriate approach.

Stakeholders made the following comments:

• “You had two very seasoned journalists, both Patrice Roy and Steve Paikin are well respected, for good reason.”
• “You had two of the best moderators in the country. Paikin was born to be a leaders’ debate moderator. That is his calling in life.”

Stakeholders emphasized that having a single, experienced moderator ensured continuity, which improved the debates by reducing distractions and keeping the spotlight on the leaders. In contrast, they noted that previous formats featuring a panel of journalists felt disjointed, with journalists competing for airtime and drawing attention away from the leaders.

By 2025, that dynamic had changed. The debates were easier to follow, more orderly and more engaging — for both the leaders and the public. There was strong consensus that the single-moderator model should continue and that it now sets the new benchmark for Canadian political debates.

3.3 Participation criteria

Since November 2020 (Order in Council 2020-0871), the Commission has been tasked with setting participation criteria for the leaders’ debates and inviting each political party leader who meets them.

The Commission’s mandate states that leaders’ debates should “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.”^{Footnote 10}

In 2021, the Commission established four guiding principles to establish the participation criteria. They should:

• 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.

On June 22, 2021, the Commission announced its participation criteria for the 44th general election. ^{Footnote 11}

In order to be invited by the Commission to participate in the 2021 leaders' debates, a leader of a political party was required to meet one of the following criteria:

2025 participation criteria

Following the 2021 election, the Commission consulted with stakeholders to assess whether the participation criteria remained appropriate or required amendment for the next electoral cycle.

On January 14, 2025, the Commission released its participation criteria, accompanied by supporting rationale.^{Footnote 12} In the decision, the Commission concluded that the 2021 model relied too heavily on past performance and needed to better reflect a party’s current viability at the time of the next election. Drawing on consultations, research and evidence — including feedback from registered political parties — the Commission revised the criteria to give more weight to present-day political strength.

Two additional guiding principles were adopted. The criteria should:

• 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.

In order to be invited by the Commission to participate in the leaders’ debates for the 45th general election, a leader of a registered political party had to meet two of the following criteria:

These criteria balanced historical legitimacy with current electoral viability, allowing both established and emerging parties a path to the debate stage. The full rationale was detailed in the Commission’s public decision document.^{Footnote 13}

Stakeholders noted that the Commission had raised the threshold for inclusion compared to 2021. Writer and poll analyst Éric Grenier commented that “this latest iteration might be the most reasonable so far” and that the Commission “should stick to this criteria for good.”

2025 campaign and application of the criteria

As outlined in the decision, the Commission believed its revised criteria met its stated principles: they were simple, clear, objective, measurable and served the public interest.

In its decision document, the Commission explained that with respect to the time frame for measuring criteria (ii) and (iii), 28 days before the date of the general election was an appropriate day to determine voting intention because it balanced the need for the Commission to use the most up-to-date evidence possible and the need to ensure that the debates producer had sufficient time to produce a high-quality debate, as required by the Order in Council, and that the political parties could properly prepare for the debates.

The Commission’s decision document also explained that political parties intending to rely on criterion (iii) were expected to submit to the Commission a list of candidates they had endorsed in federal ridings no later than 28 days before the date of the general election. Because debates are held well before Election Day, parties were not required to demonstrate that those candidates were formally nominated with Elections Canada.

The Commission had considered using Elections Canada’s confirmed candidates list for criterion (iii), but the debates producer advised that this timeline, which would result in letters of invitation being sent barely one week before the debate, was too tight to allow for possible changes to the set and the format.

The Liberal Party of Canada, the Conservative Party of Canada, the New Democratic Party, and the Bloc Québécois qualified to participate in the debates under criteria (i) and (ii). Each was represented in the House of Commons and received a level of national support of at least 4 per cent in public opinion polls. The Green Party of Canada qualified under criteria (i) and (iii) by having elected MPs in the House of Commons and candidates endorsed in 90 per cent of ridings.

Consequently, on April 1, the Commission issued letters of invitation to the leaders of the five qualifying parties.^{Footnote 14}

Exclusion of the Green Party

On March 31, 2025, the Green Party submitted a list of 340 endorsed candidates to the Commission. The Commission determined that the Green Party met criterion (iii) by having endorsed candidates in 90 per cent of ridings 28 days before the date of the general election. Therefore, as noted above, the Green Party qualified for participation under criteria (i) and (iii).

Six days later, on April 6, 2025, the Green Party submitted an official list of 342 endorsed candidates to Elections Canada.

However, on April 9, when Elections Canada released the final list of confirmed candidates for the 45th general election, it included 232 candidates endorsed by the Green Party. This was more than 100 fewer candidates than the party had submitted to the Commission nine days earlier, and well short of 90 per cent of federal ridings.

On April 15, 2025, the Commission became aware of public comments made by the leader of the Green Party stating that the party had made a strategic decision not to run a full slate of candidates in certain ridings, as reported by Radio-Canada:

« C’est une décision stratégique, admet Jonathan Pedneault. On a décidé de ne pas envoyer de candidats dans certains comtés, notamment là où les conservateurs ont plus de chances de remporter les élections que nous. »

[It’s a strategic decision," admits Jonathan Pedneault. "We decided not to run candidates in certain ridings, particularly where the Conservatives have a better chance of winning the election than we do.]

After seeking and receiving submissions from the Green Party on these comments, the Commission concluded that the party’s strategic reduction in the number of candidates running was inconsistent with its interpretation of party viability, which criterion (iii) was designed to measure. The Commission considered that including the leader of the Green Party in these circumstances would undermine the integrity of the debates and the interests of the voting public.

Consequently, early in the morning of April 16, 2025, the Commission rescinded the invitation to the Green Party to participate. Although the decision was made the morning of the French debate, the debates producer was able to accommodate the change in both the set and format of the debate.

The Green Party subsequently challenged the Commission’s decision to exclude it from the 2025 debates before the Federal Court.

Revising the participation criteria

As is customary, the Commission held consultations after the 2025 leaders’ debates to inform its final report to Parliament.

Although the participation criteria for the next general election will need to be set by a future Commissioner in advance of the 46th general election, the Commission has considered its approach to setting and applying the 2025 criteria to inform future mandates.

There is a consensus among stakeholders that the participation criteria used in 2025 were generally valid, but their administration should be reviewed, particularly criterion (iii). Specifically, they recommended that criterion (iii) be amended to require parties to have candidates in 90 per cent of federal ridings confirmed by Elections Canada. This would allow the Commission to rely on Elections Canada’s official list of confirmed candidates.

This would necessitate moving the date for the determination of criterion (iii) from 28 days to 19 days before the date of the general election, aligning it with the date on which Elections Canada publishes its final list of confirmed candidates based on the process established under the Canada Elections Act.

Criterion (ii), which measures whether political parties receive a level of national support of at least 4 per cent in national public opinion polls, would have to be similarly modified to reflect a 19-day threshold. This would create a single determination date and reflect the Commission’s view that voting intention should be based on the most up-to-date evidence available.

Although this would reduce the time the debates producer has to prepare for the debates, the 2025 election cycle demonstrated that it is feasible for the Commission to wait until one week prior to the debates to finalize which parties qualify to participate. In addition, while it would reduce the amount of time the leader of a political party has to prepare for the debates after the final participation decision by approximately one week, leaders would have an indication of whether they would meet the criteria prior to the final decision based on public polling data and whether they intend to nominate candidates in 90 per cent of federal ridings. Therefore, the Commission should consider adjusting the decision deadline from 28 to 19 days before the date of the general election, which would approximately coincide with one week before the debates.

The revised participation criteria could read as follows:

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:

3.4 Measures to encourage participation

In 2025, as in 2021 and 2019, all leaders invited to the Commission’s debates attended. While some factors affecting participation are beyond a debate organizer's control, the Commission maintains that no special measures are required by the Government of Canada to encourage leader participation.

The Commission remains of the view that the best ways to encourage participation are:

• delivering a large audience for the debates;
• engaging with leaders and political parties in advance of the election;
• creating a climate of expectancy and stability; and
• making debate invitations and party responses publicly available.

The Consortium on Electoral Democracy (C-DEM) and the Canadian Election Study (CES) poll revealed that 87 per cent of respondents expected leaders’ debates to occur during the 45th general election, and a majority said it was very important that all invited leaders participate. Additionally, 65 per cent stated that their perception of a leader would be negatively affected if that leader declined to take part, while 79 per cent agreed it is the duty of party leaders to attend the debates.

3.5 Media accreditation and media environment

As in 2019 and 2021, the Commission administered media accreditation and organized and managed the press conferences that followed the debates. In 2025, issues arose regarding the accreditation of media and the rules governing leaders’ press conferences following the debates. The Commission is committed to resolving these issues before the next election.

Mandate

The Commission’s core mandate is to organize leaders’ debates and ensure that Canadians benefit from substantive exchanges between party leaders. However, the Commission has administered media accreditation, provided facilities for coverage of the debates and organized and managed post-debate press conferences.

Prior challenges to the accreditation policy

In 2019, the Commission initially denied accreditation to two organizations on the grounds that they were actively involved in advocacy. In 2021, the Commission initially denied accreditation to several applicants on the grounds that they were in a conflict of interest by being actively involved in campaigning and did not adhere to professional journalistic standards.

The Commission faced legal challenges in both 2019 and 2021. The court ruled that the Commission did not have the competence to determine what professional journalism is nor the authority to use codes of conduct of journalistic associations^{Footnote 15} to inform its media accreditation policy. In both cases, the Commission was ordered to accredit applicants who had initially been denied the ability to attend the debates.

2025 media accreditation policy

Given the judicial decisions in both 2019 and 2021, the Commission determined that media representatives seeking accreditation for the leaders’ debates in 2025 would be accredited based on their assignment by a media organization. For this purpose, the Commission’s policy defined a “media organization” broadly, as one “that either produces original news content related to coverage of Canadian or international political news, or covers political, social and policy issues.”

The Commission’s media accreditation policy was published in August 2024 to ensure that organizations had ample time to review it in advance of applying for accreditation.

The policy also stated that participation in the post-debate press conferences would be limited to one reporter and one still photographer per media organization, in order to allow participation by as many different media organizations as possible. Rebel News Network (Rebel News) took the position that each of its five stated divisions - Rebel News Canada, Rebel News' French Division, Rebel News' Ontario Division, Rebel News' Prairie Division and Rebel News' West Coast Division – was a separate media organization and threatened legal action to obtain urgent injunctive relief if one reporter from each of these divisions was not allowed to participate in the press conferences.

Given the previous cases, and rather than devote resources to responding to an urgent injunction (especially on a compressed timeline), the Commission agreed to provide five reporters from Rebel News with passes for the press conference. To ensure an equivalent level of fairness to all media organizations, the Commission then provided additional press conference access to other organizations based on the number of platforms or outlets within the organization. For example, for the CBC this meant that rather than one reporter, four reporters would have access to the press conferences – one each to represent CBC News (its main network news programming), CBC News Network, CBC Radio and CBC.ca.

2025 debates

The 2025 debates generated heightened media interest. Just over 200 applicants from 60 organizations were accredited, representing a 30 per cent increase from 2021.

During the French debate, the first of the two debates, representatives from one media organization asked 4 of the 16 questions that time permitted, limiting the opportunity for other media organizations to ask questions.

Frustration over this imbalance, combined with the difference of opinion about who should and should not have received accreditation, escalated the following night at the English debate. The ensuing disruption in the press room ultimately resulted in the Commission’s decision to cancel the leader’s press conferences following the English debate over concerns that a respectful and functional environment for the leaders could not be guaranteed.

Options for the next debates

Media coverage of the debates, both immediate and in the days following, amplifies their impact and extends their reach. However, if reporting focuses on events in the media room, Canadians are less likely to focus on what the leaders said during the debate itself. Controversy, which overshadows the debates themselves, is not in the public interest. The Commission is committed to keeping the focus and attention centred on the debates.

Following the 2025 debates, the Commission faced a number of fundamental questions:

• Should the Commission continue to manage media accreditation?
• Should the Commission continue to manage the post-debate press conferences for the media to engage the leaders following each debate?
• Should the Commission be involved in trying to define journalism?

The Commission consulted widely on these questions. It consulted journalistic associations, including the Parliamentary Press Gallery, the Canadian Association of Journalists, the Québec Federation of Journalists, and the Independent Press Gallery. It also consulted press councils, academic experts, its Advisory Board and debates practitioners abroad. The four political parties involved in the 2025 debates were also consulted.

There was no consensus on any of the issues related to media accreditation and the press conferences of party leaders. Nor was there a consensus on what constitutes a media organization, what defines journalism or who is a journalist. Some stakeholders noted that journalism is not a regulated profession like law or medicine and that there is no legal definition for journalism that could be upheld in court.

In post-debate consultations, stakeholders proposed a wide range of solutions. While some suggested that the Commission deny accreditation to certain media organizations, others advocated for enforceable rules or codes of conduct governing both the debates and the press conferences, which would be published well in advance of the events.

There was no consensus on whether the Commission should be responsible for organizing and managing the leaders’ press conferences. Some journalistic associations argued that post-debate conferences are an important part of debate coverage, as leaders should be held accountable by the press for what they have said during the debate. Other stakeholders felt that the debates speak for themselves, and the press conferences do not add to the needs of the voting public. Still others wondered why the Commission would be involved in either media accreditation or the post-debate press conferences when these responsibilities are not specified in its mandate.

Commission’s recommendation

After carefully considering the feedback received, the Commission recommends that it should continue to accredit the media and provide them with working spaces and facilities for live broadcasts. However, the Commission should not provide facilities for on-site press conferences by party leaders. Parties may organize their own press conferences at another location, if they wish.

Three main considerations underline this recommendation. The first is the Commission’s mandate. Its core responsibility is to organize leaders’ debates that provide Canadians with information to help them make an informed choice at the ballot box.

Secondly, the Commission believes in press access to the debates as a guarantee of transparency and accountability in election campaigns, as in other political activities. While the Commission could seek to organize and manage press conferences with clear and enforceable rules, for e.g. limiting the number of questions per media organization, a system for who gets to ask questions, and a code of conduct to manage these rules, rules alone may not be sufficient to guarantee a respectful and functional environment and could lead to contention and litigation over their imposition.

Thirdly, it is neither the Commission’s role nor its responsibility to attempt to legally define what constitutes journalism. This is a wider societal issue, and the leaders’ debates are not the forum in which to litigate this.

The Commission recommends this option to a future Commissioner because it best serves the public interest and preserves the integrity of the debates. It would help keep the public’s focus on the debates themselves, ensuring that Canadians who did not watch live can still read, watch or hear substantive coverage of what the leaders said on stage. This approach also guarantees media access to the event and the venue, while respecting with the Commission’s mandate.

3.6 Reach, languages & accessibility

The Commission's Orders in Council states:

"It is desirable that leaders' debates reach all Canadians, including those with disabilities, those living in remote areas and those living in official language minority communities”^{Footnote 16} and that the Commission should "endeavour to ensure that the leaders' debates are available in languages other than French and English, and, in doing so, pay special attention to Canada's Indigenous languages."^{Footnote 17}

Leaders' debates are democratic exercises that should reach as many Canadians as possible. The Commission’s mandate ensures that Canadians can access and experience the debates in the language of their choice and in a format suited to their needs. When Canadians watch, listen to or read the debates — live or through digital channels afterward — they actively engage in the democratic process. By making the debates widely available and accessible, the Commission helps strengthen Canada’s democratic institutions.

The debates have become “event television” in Canada. The total audience for the English debate reached 12.4 million, a 21per cent increase over 2021. This includes just under 8 million TV viewers, close to the average audience of the 2025 Super Bowl. CBC reported that their coverage of the English-language debate was the most-watched primetime program across Canada on April 17^{Footnote 18}. The interest in the French debate was equally high, with a combined reach exceeding 4.8 million TV viewers, and a total audience of 7 million across television, radio, and digital platforms.

Notably, the audience that accessed the debate via digital channels increased significantly. The increase in viewers who streamed the debates on the debate producer’s YouTube channels alone was 125 per cent for the French debate and 96 per cent for the English debate. As well, Radio-Canada reported a threefold increase in the number of connections to their digital platforms^{Footnote 19}.

While these increases highlight the importance of the debates, the actual audience numbers may be even higher, as some media organizations either could not or chose not to report their totals. The Commission is seeking ways to encourage all distributors to provide their audience totals following future debates.

The Commission’s debates continue to attract new distributors, thereby increasing accessibility and drawing in a wider audience. In 2025, La Converse, Parrot.tv, and TVO provided their viewers with debates for the first time. New international distributors included BBC News, Eurovision, Reuters and TV5 Monde. Radio reach was also increased, with Bell Media News Talk, Corus Talk Network, iHeart Radio and Rawlco Radio all picking up the debates for their listeners.

The debates were provided live in 15 languages. The debates producer delivered the debates in English and French, five Indigenous languages (East Cree, Inuktitut, Innu, Ojibway and Plains Cree), American Sign Language (ASL), Langue des signes Québécoise (LSQ) and a further six languages were available through OMNI-TV (Arabic, Cantonese, Italian, Mandarin, Punjabi and Tagalog). They were also available with closed captioning and described video to assist viewers who may have hearing or visual impairments. Canadians were able to watch the debates online after they aired, in the language of their choice, on YouTube channels that remain available on the Commission’s website. A full, unedited transcript of each debate was also made available on the Commission’s website.

The audience reach figures in the table below were compiled and provided by the debates producer, using data from Numeris TV Meter, InfoSys+, Adobe Analytics and reports from media organizations. However, capturing the total viewership is a challenging task. For example, much of the audience for APTN, which aired the debates with Indigenous language interpretation, resides in areas not covered by TV meters. Radio-Canada Info’s YouTube, which included LSQ, had 110,446 views; however, it’s not possible to know how many people chose Radio-Canada Info solely to access LSQ.

As in previous years, language interpretation was the responsibility of the debates producer, as stipulated in the request for proposal (RFP). Interpretation into Canada’s official languages, the five Indigenous languages, ASQ and LSQ was contracted by the debates producer to the Translation Bureau, a division of Public Services and Procurement Canada. Leading into this year’s debates, the Translation Bureau and the debates producer worked cooperatively to limit the cost of interpretation as much as possible. The Translation Bureau absorbed some costs it would normally charge, such as general and indirect fees; however, in the future, it will operate on a full cost recovery basis for major events.

The Commission remains committed to providing debates in Canada’s official languages, including ASL, LSQ, and described video, as well as in multiple Indigenous languages. However, it is prudent to examine ways in which the cost of interpretation may be reduced, such as:

• reducing travel costs for interpreters by providing technical facilities closer to their home communities;
• reviewing the choices of Indigenous languages offered;
• eliminating gender-matching (where the gender of the interpreter and speaker is the same); and
• identifying private firms that could offer the same service at a lower rate.

3.7 Debates procurement and production

Procurement:

Background

As in 2019 and 2021, the debates producer was selected through a request for proposal (RFP) process. The Statement of Work (SoW) included in the RFP detailed the requirements for the promotion, production and distribution of the two debates. Bidders could submit proposals for one or both debates.

Building on lessons learned from 2021, the Commission enhanced clarity in the RFP, particularly regarding format and moderation. A format template and moderator selection criteria were included, helping to address previous concerns.

In 2024, one joint proposal was submitted, from CBC/Radio-Canada. Unlike in previous years, no consortium or partnership of news organizations put forward a bid. This may reflect the shifting Canadian media landscape, characterized by declining revenues and reductions in newsroom staff. Despite the absence of competing bids, the submission underwent full technical and financial evaluation before being accepted. The resulting contract with the debates producer runs to September 30, 2026.

Future process

The RFP process remains complex and time-consuming — from drafting the SoW to final evaluations. Although some broadcasters have called for simplification, the current process ensures fairness, transparency, and requires bidders to fully understand and meet the Commission’s needs.

Given the state of the industry, CBC/Radio-Canada may continue to be the only organization with the resources and in-house capacity to respond. To streamline future processes, the Commission may consider using a Letter of Intent approach, while still requiring the contractor to demonstrate how they will meet production requirements.

The Commission believes that the format and moderation of the 2025 debates have established the standard for future debates. The issues experienced in these areas in previous debates have been resolved; therefore, a future SoW should follow the conditions laid out in the 2024 RFP.

Distribution remains an important focus for the future, and a critical measure of the debates' success. The ability of a debates producer to engage networks such as APTN and OMNI is key to language distribution. An emphasis on the widest possible distribution of the debates should remain as a fundamental criterion in all future contracts.

Promotion is also essential to the success of the debates, which includes both proactive pre-debate outreach to other media organizations to encourage them to distribute the debates and the provision of promotional and advertising materials to all distributors. Promotion should continue to be a mandatory requirement within the SoW.

Production:

The debates producer designed a simple, intimate set to keep focus on the leaders and the content. The layout, which placed leaders and the moderator in close proximity, drew strong praise. One commentator described it as a “perfect visual metaphor.” Another stakeholder remarked that, in comparison to prior leaders’ debates, “this set was extraordinary.”

The debates producer was able to update a set that had proved successful for a previous provincial debate, a cost-effective solution. The positioning of the participants allowed for a direct line of sight between the leaders and the moderator, which facilitated the moderator’s ability to control the flow of the debate, impose discipline when necessary and encourage lively discussion between the leaders. Overall, the set's muted and neutral colours complemented the event, ensuring the focus was on the leaders and the debate itself.

In line with the Commission’s recommendation, no live studio audience attended the 2025 debates. While audiences were present in 2019, public health concerns prevented them in 2021. The absence of an audience reduced costs, simplified logistics and improved security. Stakeholders, including security services, endorsed the approach.

The timing and location of the debates drew a mixed reaction. The debates producer selected the time and date for each debate, following consultation with major broadcasters on their programming schedules. However, it became apparent very shortly before the French debate that the Montreal Canadiens could clinch a playoff spot if they won their final regular-season game scheduled for the same night as the debate. Following discussions between the Commission, the debates producer, and television distributors, an earlier start time was agreed upon^{Footnote 20}. The change did inconvenience some distributors, as programming plans had to be changed on short notice, and Public Service Announcements (PSAs) and promotional materials that included the debate time had to be updated. Although the C-DEM and CES study reported that the change to an earlier start time was generally well received, it posed challenges for those in the western time zones, where the debate began while many were still at work or commuting. Participants in the focus groups conducted as part of C-DEM and CES noted that the availability of recordings, delayed broadcasts and media summaries helped mitigate the issue.

In 2019 and 2021, the debates were held in the National Capital Region, at the Museum of History in Gatineau, Québec. This venue was regarded as a “neutral” location, convenient for leaders and their staff, media, and the debate producers. In 2025, Montreal was chosen as the location, with the debates being held at the Maison de Radio-Canada (MRC). Radio-Canada had previously produced provincial debates using the atrium of its headquarters as the studio, taking advantage of its in-house technical facilities. Some C-DEM and CES focus group participants emphasized the relevance of keeping at least the French-language debate in Québec.

Some political parties consulted after the debates noted that relocating senior staff from Ottawa to Montreal for an extended period posed logistical challenges. They observed that the concentrated time required in Montreal during a critical phase of the campaign was disruptive and added strain to their operations.

As mentioned, the venue itself, the MRC, allowed the debates producer to rely on in-house technical facilities and staff. This not only lessened the cost of venue rental, staff travel, and equipment rental but also increased the reliability and ease of access to the technical and production infrastructure required to support the debates.

There were some challenges, however, as the MRC is a 24/7 work environment, and Radio-Canada has other production responsibilities. Access to some areas is restricted, meaning movement within the building for political staff and the Commission was constrained. The set itself was in an open area, visible to any visitor to the building prior to the debates. The venue did not allow for a separate space for the press conferences following the scrums, which contributed to the issues experienced in the media filing room, as described earlier.

Security planning was complex. In Montreal, four services were involved: the building’s contracted security, the Service de Police de la Ville de Montréal (SPVM), the Sûreté du Québec (SQ) and the RCMP. Improved coordination between all security services, the Commission and the debates producer must be explored to enhance the planning and execution of security measures for future debates.

The Commission and the debates producer should therefore assess whether the financial and production benefits of holding the debates at this venue outweigh the challenges, whether solutions can be found or if another more suitable location should be considered.

3.8 Debate promotion, cyber security and engagement

Promotion and Distribution

The debates producer is responsible for two key promotional goals: first, to inform media outlets that the debates are available for free; and second, to encourage Canadians to watch or listen, either live or later via verified recordings.

In 2019 and 2021, a group of media organizations, commonly referred to as the consortium^{Footnote 21}, jointly produced the debates. This guaranteed that, at minimum, all the organizations included would carry the debates on multiple platforms — television, radio and digital.

In 2025, with CBC/Radio-Canada as the sole debates producer, additional outreach was required to all those who had carried the debates in the past. Although there was a concern that some media organizations might choose not to carry the debates for competitive reasons, this was proved unfounded. The debates aired across 34 broadcast outlets, 10 radio networks and 60 digital streams.

The debates producer built a strong relationship with APTN, to distribute the debates with Indigenous language interpretation and with OMNI TV to connect with Canadians in additional non-official languages. AMI-TV provided access to audiences requiring described video. Both debates are made available with American Sign Language (ASL) and Langue des signes du Québec (LSQ) via the debates producer’s YouTube streams.

In 2025, the Commission expanded outreach by connecting with new platforms, including La Converse, a Montreal-based digital outlet focused on marginalized communities. Their stream of the debates drew 5,000 views — many from Canadians less likely to engage with traditional media. Going forward, the Commission should continue to push for the broader availability of ASL and LSQ on broadcast and digital platforms.

The debates producer created multiple campaigns to promote and market the debates on television, radio, online and on social media, encouraging Canadians to watch or listen. The debates producer is required to pay special attention to the availability of debates with Indigenous language interpretation, ASL, LSQ and described video. Targeted promotional campaigns have a direct effect on viewership. For example, Radio-Canada produced a sign language advertisement directing their audience needing LSQ to their digital platforms, resulting in a large increase in viewers over 2021.

The debates producer also supplied other distributors of the debates with promotional material, such as a Public Service Announcement (PSA) that they could use on their own channels or platforms. This can be a challenging undertaking, as promotional material cannot be created until the participants are selected, the dates and times confirmed and the logo designed. It is also essential that the material provided to other distributors is generic or brand-neutral so that any media organization may use it.

Given that the Commission’s contract with the debates producer is in place until September 2026, the Commission and debates producer should discuss the possibility of producing some promotional elements earlier in the pre-debate campaign period. This will assist all distributors in planning and programming their own promotional campaigns.

Cyber Security and Combatting Misinformation

The Commission continues to prioritize cyber security and the integrity of the debates, especially in the face of rising threats from artificial intelligence and disinformation. It follows the advice and guidance provided by the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security (CCCS) at the Communications Security Establishment (CSE). Canada’s democratic institutions are also safeguarded by the analysis of the Security and Intelligence Threats to Elections Task Force (SITE).

In its publication, Cyber Threats to Canada's Democratic Process: 2025 Update^{Footnote 22}, the CCCS warned that “Hostile actors are increasingly leveraging artificial intelligence (AI) in attempts to interfere win democratic processes, including elections...”. Election Canada's Public Opinion Research Study on Electoral Matters^{Footnote 23} reported that 80 per cent of respondents thought "the spread of false information online" could impact the outcome of the next federal election.

CCCS provided extensive assistance in identifying what should be included in the debate producer RFP to ensure the cyber security and integrity of the debates. The debates producer was required to incorporate their advice on cyber security best practices.

It will be essential for the Commission to continue its relationship with CCCS/CSE due to the ongoing and increasingly rapid changes in cyber activity, the use of AI tools, and the spread of misinformation and disinformation. It would be helpful to have a decision made on the debate location as early as possible to allow adequate consultation between the Commission, CSE and the venue.

Ongoing Engagement and Preparedness

Between 2021 and 2025, the Commission actively consulted stakeholders and built partnerships to improve future debates. This work must continue — especially in the context of a minority government, where a snap election is always possible.

Engagement between election periods takes many forms:

• continuing to build the relationships developed with the Debates International network and National Democratic Institute, to share insights on best practices;
• fostering dialogue with debate moderators, TV producers and executives in comparable G7 countries;
• maintaining contact with debate organizers in Australia, France, Germany, the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada;
• providing advice and guidance to other debate organizers, domestic and international.
• discussion and review with the debates producer to assess what might be improved for the next debates;
• working with the debates producer, the Translation Bureau, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada and others on Indigenous interpretation, to assess the selection of languages chosen and identify and train interpreters;
• with the debates producer, identifying and developing potential moderators.
• developing outreach contacts to ensure all Canadians — especially those underserved —engage with leaders' debates;
• consulting with the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security (CCCS) and the Security Intelligence Threats to Elections Task Force (SITE) to ensure cyber security of the debate venue and debate feed and to ensure debate integrity and combat disinformation around debates; and
• ongoing consultations with digital and social media platforms to combat misinformation, identify synthetic or malicious content and create a safe space to host the debates digitally.

3.9 Summary of expenditures

The Commission received $5.5 million to support each of its three mandates, for federal elections in 2019, 2021 and 2025.

In the Commission’s first two mandates, which covered the elections in 2019 and 2021, the Commission’s funding was allocated over two years. In election year 2019–20, the Commission spent $3.7 million. In election year 2021-22, $3.2 million.

Each election cycle ended with a surplus, the vast majority of which could not be carried forward to the following year or subsequent mandate.

During the Commission’s third mandate, the same accessible budget of $5.5 million was distributed over four years to ensure a base level of funding and sustained operational readiness in the event of a snap election, an essential approach in a minority government context.

	1st Mandate		2nd Mandate		3rd Mandate
Fiscal Year	2018-19	2019-20	2020-21	2021-22	2022-23	2023-24	2024-25	2025-26*
Election vs Non-election Year	Non-election	Election on Oct. 21, 2019	Non-election	Election on Sept. 20, 2021	Non-election			Election on Apr. 28, 2025
Spending in $ Millions	0.1	3.7	0.3	3.2	0.7	0.6	0.7	2.3

* Fiscal year 2018-19 represents January 1, 2019, to March 31, 2019 (3 months).
* Fiscal year 2020-21 represents November 5, 2020, to March 31, 2021 (approx. five months).
* Fiscal years 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25 each represent 12 months.
* The remaining spending from 2018-2019 to 2023-24 are actual expenditures as reported in the public accounts. 2024-25 is forecast spending, and 2025-26 spending is a preliminary forecast.

The Commission’s first mandate began in January 2019. During that fiscal year ending on March 31, 2019, its non-election year activities focused on recruiting staff, securing office space and covering initial operational costs associated with establishing the institution.

The second mandate began in November 2020, with that fiscal year’s non-election year work again centred on recruiting staff and standing up the Commission, which had been dormant between federal elections.

This third mandate was the only non-election year period during which the small secretariat operated between federal elections.

During its third mandate, the Commission consulted with a wide range of stakeholders in Canada and abroad, including experts and academics who focus on and research issues related to democracy, polling and debates. These consultations were part of its activities to ensure that its policies and practices are reviewed and developed for the next election. The Commission also engaged with political parties as part of this process.

The Commission also undertook a wide range of initiatives, including delivering its final report to Parliament, drafting a media accreditation policy and setting participation criteria. The Commission expanded consultations — both nationally and internationally — with debate organizers, moderators, television executives and former debate participants from Australia, France, Germany, the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada. These efforts aimed to understand participant experiences, gather diverse perspectives and, most importantly, identify the format and moderation principles that produce the most effective and informative debates, in response to issues raised in the previous mandate.

The Commission also researched, developed, and issued a request for proposal (RFP) to select a debates producer — an organization or joint venture contracted to promote, produce and distribute two leaders’ debates, one in French and one in English. The RFP outlined all production, promotion, and distribution requirements; included a format template and moderator selection criteria for the debate producer; and clearly defined the debate producer’s roles and responsibilities.

Additionally, the Commission remained attentive to technological developments that may influence debate production; engaged with stakeholders across multiple agencies on debate-related issues; collaborated with academics to create studies, focus groups, and surveys assessing Canadians’ political engagement, attitudes, and behaviors toward debates; and managed operational services such as financial and government reporting, procurement, and website administration.

Expenditures were directed to salaries for the Commission’s small secretariat (three people: 1 full-time and 2 part-time), and core operational costs (website and information management, legal services, translation and expenses related to administrative support from the Privy Council Office).

In 2022–23, actual spending was $699,364. In 2023–24, it stood at $643,647, and in 2024–2025, forecast spending is expected to be within the same range.

In 2025–26, an election year, the preliminary forecast spending is $2,341,931. Expenditures are allocated to salaries — including three employees of the Commission’s secretariat (one full-time and two part-time) and core operational costs noted above, plus operational contracts for research evaluation activities, distribution and monitoring services, copy-editing, and preparation of the Commission’s final report. Additionally, during debate week in Montreal, the Commission hired four part-time staff members to support the delivery of the debates.

In election years 2019, 2021 and 2025, the main spending was the cost of the debate production contract, which has been consistently set at a maximum of $1.8 million for two debates, one in French and one in English.

In 2025, spending for this contract covered on-site production and location costs (media facilities, event logistics, tech support, equipment, set design), graphics and sound, connectivity and distribution, promotion, translation, accessibility and cyber security.

The debate production contract provides funding for services above and beyond the historical expectations of a debates producer, including free signal distribution and ensuring both debates are available in multiple languages — including Indigenous languages — and in accessible formats.

In 2019, the actual cost of the debate production for two leaders’ debates was just under $1.7 million; in 2021, it was just over $1.7 million. Actual spending for 2025 is slightly below $1.1 million. The use of existing technical facilities and studios in Montreal was a fiscally prudent and cost-effective approach, which reduced overall debate production spending in 2025. Additionally, the Translation Bureau and the debates producer worked in close collaboration to minimize interpretation costs, further contributing to the efficient management of the contract.

3.10 Future mandate, authority and governance

The Commission has now been responsible for the organization of leaders' debates in the last three federal election campaigns: 2019, 2021 and 2025. After the 2019 and 2021 debates, the Commission recommended to the Government that it eventually be made permanent through legislation. The previous government did not act on this recommendation.

However, in November 2020, the President of the Queen's Privy Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs stated in response to the 2019 report that he would "favour an ongoing permanent structure in legislation, which would provide that basic platform in general elections of an accessible, open and fair debate between leaders with a properly independent commission to make those decisions."^{Footnote 24}

The decision to continue with the Commission and in what form now rests with the new government. Before outlining the options, this report summarizes the Commission’s contributions to Canadian democracy over the last three election cycles.

Increased viewership

• 2019: 19 million viewers across both debates — exceeding previous campaigns.
• 2021: 14.5 million viewers, still high despite lower voter engagement due to COVID-19 and a short interval since the last federal election.
• 2025: 19.4 million viewers — the highest on record.

Debates are comparable to big event television.

Wider reach and accessibility

Offering a free signal of the debates for distribution enabled multiple media partners to distribute them, thereby increasing reach and impact. The English-language and French-language debates were available live on 34 television outlets, 10 radio networks and 60 digital streams.

The debates were made accessible in 13 additional languages — including five Indigenous languages — alongside American Sign Language (ASL), Langue des signes québécoise (LSQ), closed captioning and described video. This inclusive approach fostered deeper engagement from communities that are often marginalized in the political process.

This unprecedented level of reach and accessibility has elevated the debates into the centerpiece of the election campaign. The extensive network of distribution partners ensures that the debates will have maximum impact as a major televised event.

Depoliticization, stability, predictability and transparency

The Commission has made debates more stable, predictable and transparent. Political parties participate without preconditions. Canadians now expect debates to take place during every federal election.

In 2025, a broad coalition of news organizations broadcast the debates without a formal media consortium, underscoring their shared commitment to democratic discourse. This marked a turning point, transforming them into neutral democratic exercises. This pivotal shift has fostered greater public trust and enhanced transparency in the democratic process, confirming that a significant number of news organizations support the democratic principle of holding debates.

The development of participation criteria through extensive consultations has significantly enhanced transparency in the debates process.

The existence of the Commission had streamlined the process for political parties by consolidating debate participation into a single, official framework, thereby enhancing clarity and operational efficiency.

Knowledge base

Through research, consultation and analysis, the Commission has developed expertise that did not previously exist and would not exist otherwise. The Commission’s national and international consultations informed the improvements to format and moderation in the 2025 leaders’ debates. The Commission shares its findings at global forums, and its studies and polling now inform debate practices in Canada and abroad. This evidence-based approach informs ongoing improvements to the debates with each electoral cycle.

The future

There are further considerations to take into account in deciding the future of the Commission. One is the media environment. Canadian media organizations are now in fragile financial situations.

For the first time in many years, the French-language TVA network did not organize a federal leaders’ debate in 2025, citing financial pressures as the reason for its request for a fee. Although major English-language networks such as CTV and Global did not join the production group, they still distributed the debates. In this context, the Commission’s financial and organizational support helps sustain public access to debates despite these pressures.

Another factor is the political environment. Canada now has its third consecutive minority government. This requires debate organizers to remain debate-ready throughout the electoral cycle. The Commission, whose core responsibility is organizing debates, is uniquely positioned to fulfill that role. It has an established working relationship with the political parties and a range of stakeholders, experience from three recent elections, a ready-made set of participation criteria and a production contract with the debates producer.

Number of debates

In 2025, as in the two previous elections, the Commission's mandate was to organize two debates, one in each of the official languages. Following the 2021 federal election, there were calls for more debates from the public, civil society and media commentators, especially in English Canada.

There was widespread consensus in post-debate consultations that the Commission should consider organizing more than one debate in each official language to address the imbalance experienced in 2021 (when there were two debates in French but only one in English).

In 2025 post-debate consultations, some stakeholders reiterated their interest in having more debates. Some also proposed adopting a “frontrunners’ debate” model used in parts of Europe, allowing Canadians to hear directly from leaders most likely to form government and become prime minister. This idea was seen as particularly compelling in the context of the 2025 election, which was widely perceived as a pivotal decision about which leader could best navigate the escalating tariff threats from the American administration.

International experience, particularly in several European countries, suggests that a frontrunners’ debate model can be effective. In the Canadian context, however, stakeholders identified challenges with this approach, including the willingness or availability of invited leaders to participate, the potential fragmentation of the viewing audience, and logistical constraints posed by shorter electoral campaigns. Canada's electoral history may offer a foundation for identifying which parties could participate in a frontrunners’ debate — namely, those most likely to form government. Implementing such a model would require a cultural shift, broad support from political parties and broadcasters and the establishment of two distinct and objective sets of participation criteria. Further consideration will be required before reaching a decision on whether the Commission should organize additional leaders’ debates.

However, the Commission believes it should have the option and capacity to consider organizing more than two debates — one in each official language —provided additional funding is made available and that there is support from political parties and other interested parties.

Financial and budgetary flexibility

Given the current third consecutive minority government, the Commission must maintain readiness between elections. Even in non-election years, staffing levels should be maintained at an appropriate level to support a potential snap election. The Commission recommends greater flexibility in managing its budget during non-election years, allowing for more responsive allocation between operational and staffing costs.

Options for debate organization

In light of the Commission's consultations and stakeholder feedback, it remains relevant to consider three potential options for the future of debate organization:

1. The discontinuation of the Leaders' Debates Commission;
2. The establishment of a “full service” Commission responsible for “in-house” debate production; and
3. The continuation of the Commission as is, with its current mandate and operating approach (status quo).

The Commission has considered Option 1, but given the previously discussed considerations, it does not believe that the debate environment is stable enough to justify the discontinuation of a publicly supported debate entity. Furthermore, a future entity can continue to advance the public interest by ensuring broad reach, transparency, efficiency, and fostering a strong, nationwide and international network of democratic expertise.

Establishing a “full-service” Commission or mandating a future Commission to produce debates in-house, as outlined in Option 2, would require the onboarding of substantial resources and would likely result in higher production costs compared to maintaining a contractual relationship with an existing external entity. This approach could potentially jeopardize the Commission’s relationship with media organizations — key stakeholders who demonstrated a willingness to collaborate in 2019, 2021 and 2025.

The Commission considers Option 3 — maintaining the current model — to be the most suitable approach for safeguarding the delivery of debates that serve the public interest in the immediate term. Should incremental changes be required, they can be accomplished with existing authorities and an amendment to the mandate. This option is also the most appropriate given the context of a minority government with the constant possibility of a snap election.

The Commission provides a service to Canadians. Over the course of three political cycles, it has notably stabilized the debates environment, delivered unprecedented viewership and reach and enhanced the quality of debates for voters in 2025. It has made leaders’ debates relevant and accessible to minority language groups and disenfranchised communities. It has also established standards in format and moderation that foster civil and substantive exchanges of views between political leaders. In an era marked by rising disinformation and polarization, the Commission serves as a stabilizing institution within Canadian democracy.

Governance

Debates Commissioner

In 2019 and 2021, the Leaders' Debates Commission was headed by a Debates Commissioner who was a part-time appointee under the Order in Council (OIC). The Government announced the reappointment of the Commissioner in November 2020. Following the Commissioner's departure in 2023, the role was delegated to the Commission's Executive Director via an OIC.

The Commission supports returning to a single-Commissioner model to provide clear direction and public confidence as put forward in the 2019 and 2021 reports. Post-debate consultations underscored the importance of a distinct skillset for an effective Debates Commissioner, given that their decisions must be perceived as unequivocally serving the public interest. A Debates Commissioner must fulfill the functions of the position in a manner that is neutral, fair and principled. Desired qualities include a degree of respect or name recognition such that they are seen across the political spectrum and more generally in the Canadian population as impartial. A secondary skill set to seek would include experience in broadcasting or journalism, experience in debate negotiations and experience building relationships among political parties, as well as with a range of stakeholders.

As the Commission suggested in its previous reports, consideration could be given to consultations with political parties represented in the House of Commons surrounding the appointment process of the Debates Commissioner. This would give a future Commission non-partisan objectivity, visibility and profile, as well as credibility for decisions on issues such as participation criteria.

Advisory Board

The Commission's Advisory Board provides an essential service to the Leaders' Debates Commission. As in previous years, the Advisory Board enhanced the Commission’s work through diverse political and media expertise. The Commission’s ability to fulfill its mandate was notably enriched by the breadth of perspectives represented, as well as by the presence of sound judgment and a shared commitment to strengthening public trust in institutions. The Commission concludes that a future Commission should continue to seek and rely upon counsel from an Advisory Board that brings a range of perspectives and skills.

Conclusion

Debates are vital to the health of Canada's democracy. Millions of Canadians watch them in every election, a testament to their importance. In this report, the Commission proposed ways to make debates even more meaningful to Canadian voters as they assess and choose the leaders who will represent them in the House of Commons.

The Commission thanks our Advisory Board and 2025 production partners, CBC/Radio-Canada, for their commitment to the leaders' debates. Thanks are also extended to Canadian academics for their research and expertise, to stakeholders in Canada and abroad for their perspectives and to the many Canadians who shared their insights on how to strengthen debates.

Created after the 2015 election to ensure that leaders’ debates would take place, the Commission has, in just three election cycles, stabilized the debates environment. Debates are now a permanent fixture of federal campaigns, with every invited party leader participating. Formats and moderation have been modernized, audiences have reached record levels, and access has expanded to reach more Canadians than ever before — including minority-language and Indigenous communities. These changes have strengthened engagement and inclusion in our democracy, while building a body of best practices and expertise now shared with debate organizers across Canada and internationally.

But the Commission’s mission goes beyond reach. In an era of disinformation and declining trust, debates must also reinforce confidence in democratic institutions. For this reason, the Commission and its partners must continue to deliver debates that are independent, accessible, and firmly in the public interest.

The recommendations in this report set the path forward and will equip the next Commissioner to deliver debates that offer Canadians a thoughtful, civil and substantive exchange on the issues that define their future.

Recommendations

Appendices

Appendix 1 – Stakeholders consulted

• Advisory Board to the Commission
  • 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
• Accessible Media Inc. (AMI)
• Aengus Bridgman, Director of the Media Ecosystem Observatory at McGill University
• Aboriginal Peoples Television Network (APTN)
• Bloc Québécois
• Colette Brin, Professor at l’Université de Laval and Director of the Centre for Media Studies
• Canadian Association of Journalists (CAJ)
• Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC)
• Canadian Centre for Cyber Security (CCCS)
• Canadian Election Study – C-DEM
• Canadian Parliamentary Affairs Channel (CPAC)
• Conseil de presse du Québec (CPQ)
• Conservative Party of Canada
• The Commission on Presidential Debates
• Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec (FPJQ)
• Independent Press Gallery of Canada
• La Converse
• Liberal Party of Canada
• Debates International – National Democratic Institute
• New Democratic Party of Canada
• Parliamentary Press Gallery Executive Committee
• Parliamentary Press Gallery Secretariat
• Polling Advisory Group
  • Peter Loewen, Professor of Government at Cornell University, former director of the Munk School at the University of Toronto and former co-investigator of the Canadian Election Study
  • André Blais, Professor Emeritus at l’Université de Montréal and former co-investigator of the Canadian Election Study
  • Claire Durand, Professor at l'Université de Montréal, former President of the World Association for Public Opinion Research
  • Allison Harell, Professor at l’Université du Québec à Montréal and co-investigator of the Canadian Election Study
  • Richard Johnston, Professor Emeritus at the University of British Columbia and former co-investigator of the Canadian Election Study
  • Daniel Rubenson, Professor at the University of Toronto, co-investigator of the Canadian Election Study and the Executive Director of Evidence in Governance and Politics (EGAP)
  • Laura Stephenson, Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science at Western University and co-investigator of the Canadian Election Study
• Public Services and Procurement Canada - Translation Bureau & Events and Conference Management
• Security and Intelligence Threats to Elections (SITE) Task Force
• Société Radio Canada
• Ivor Shapiro, Professor Emeritus, School of Journalism at Toronto Metropolitan University
• Christopher Waddell, Professor Emeritus and former director of the School of Journalism and Communication at Carleton University
• Written submissions from over 5,000 members of the public

Appendix 2 - Workshop on debate production

The Leaders' Debates Commission held consultations with experts within the Canadian broadcasting industry and representatives of the political parties. Input received from the public was also reviewed. Below is a summary of their inputs.

• The use of an Editorial Council that included a variety of media outlets to discuss possible themes and questions for the English debate was valuable. It was recommended that the same approach be followed for both the French and the English debates.
• The themes chosen for the debates should be closely aligned with the issues on the minds of Canadians. There was a sense that the questions focused on the issues the leaders were already highlighting in their campaigns.
• The format of the French and English debates should be more closely aligned. Little value was seen in having two different formats.
• The use of a single moderator for each debate was effective, and the choice of moderators was excellent. The moderators were impartial and respectful, and the debates were well-managed.
• The leaders were given equivalent time to respond to questions.
• Canadians were well served by the serious tone of the debates, the leaders' focus on issues and policy rather than scoring points and the professionalism of the moderators.
• The production and technical quality of the debates were very high. The debate's set and staging worked well — the focus was on the leaders, and the moderator was positioned close enough to maintain eye contact and maintain control.
• The information provided by the debates producer to the media distributors was timely and accurate; however, improvement is needed in the promotional material provided, including earlier delivery, generic or unbranded material, promotion of languages other than French and English and continuity between the FR and EN versions.
• The effort made to make the debates widely available through interpretation to 5 Indigenous languages, American Sign Language (ASL), Langue des signes Québécoise (LSQ), and the use of Described Video was highly appreciated.
• Holding the debates in Montreal was advantageous to some parties and disadvantageous to others. Ottawa is seen as a more “neutral” location.
• The change to the airtime of the French debate was difficult to manage from a programming and promotional point of view. There was little opportunity to inform viewers, and promotional material that included the time of the debate could no longer be used.
• The revocation of the Green Party’s invitation was difficult to manage as all on-air and online promotional material, show openings, in-show graphics, etc. that included the Green Party logo, leader’s image or name in voice over could no longer be used.
• In a short election campaign period, there is minimal appeal either to the parties or the media to hold more than two debates.

Appendix 3 - Workshop on participation criteria

The Leaders' Debates Commission held a workshop with experts within the polling industry. Below is a summary of their inputs.

• Consensus that the criteria used in 2025 were correct but should be adjusted for the next election cycle, given that the constraint with the debates producer has been removed.
• Consensus that the timing should move from 28 days before the date of the general election to 21 days before the date of the general election to align with Elections Canada. 21 days before the date of the general election should apply to both criterion (ii) and (iii).
• Consensus that the verb “endorsed” should be replaced with “nominated” for criterion (iii).
• Consensus that the application of the 10-day polling window was effective and should be reapplied for the next election cycle. There were sufficient polls and pollsters included.
• Consensus that 20 days before the date of the general election becomes decision day.
• The window should continue to be based on the election date.
• The majority believed that four per cent is the right percentage of national support required.
• No consensus on whether there should be a regional criterion.
• Bifurcation for leaders most likely to form government:
  • The majority (although not all) attendees feel that there should be a way to bifurcate around leaders most likely to be PM, whether that be more than two debates, and debates with the frontrunners;
  • A set of criteria would be needed for each set of debates. No consensus on what the criteria would be for a frontrunner debate; and
  • There is a need to consider who would be official opposition in French debate.
• There was support for more than two debates (by some, but not all attendees), but no consensus on whether or not that is possible. Reasons given for why that may not be possible:
  • The campaign is short in Canada; and
  • Parties may not agree, networks may not want to distribute (but maybe two of the four could be digital distribution only?).

Appendix 4 - Workshop on media accreditation and media environment

The Leaders' Debates Commission (LDC) held discussions on media accreditation and the media environment with academics, current and former journalists, experts in communications, political parties and its Advisory Board. Below is a summary of their inputs.

• Many noted that media accreditation is not included in the Commission’s Order in Council, so questioned why the Commission had taken on media accreditation, media management and the press conferences following the debates^{Footnote 25}. They expressed the view that accreditation and press conferences should be the responsibility of either the debates producer, the political parties themselves or a media group.
• However, the majority of the journalists consulted believe that a precedent has been set, and that the Commission is better placed to manage the post-debate press conferences as a continuation of and integral part of the debates themselves.
• While all those consulted have an opinion on who is a journalist, there is little to no consensus on a legal definition. Similarly, many of those consulted had differing views on what defines a “media organization”.
• Rather than attempt to define a journalist, most journalistic organizations, such as the Canadian Association of Journalists, La Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec, and the Parliamentary Press Gallery, establish standards or guidelines that applicants must meet.
• Criteria for media accreditation must be inclusive, due to the widening range of media.
• Criteria for media accreditation must be made public and be applied equally to all applicants.
• For accreditation purposes, a distinction must be made between media and lobbyists.
• Individuals or organizations that register as third parties during an election period should not be accredited as media, as they are actively engaging in political activities. It was noted that this is not the same as a media organization having a political leaning in its coverage or editorials.
• The LDC should create and publish explicit and enforceable rules on conduct at the debates, which all media must agree to before being granted accreditation.
• The LDC should focus on having a firm logistical plan to manage media at events.
• The media view the press conferences as an essential accountability measure, a necessary opportunity to ask the leaders to clarify comments made during the debate, and an issue of press freedom. It was also noted that the press conferences after the debates present perhaps the only opportunity for media not regularly following the leaders to ask a question.
• The intention to limit questions to one journalist per media organization is sound.
• The LDC could consider a lottery system to impartially select media organizations that could then ask a question at the press conferences.
• The LDC should consider limiting the time allocated for a question.
• Access to the press conference area should be closed until immediately before they are to start.

Appendix 5 – Consortium on Electoral Democracy and Canadian Election Study 2025

See separate page.