Green leader allowed into debates, networks confirm (Sept. 10 2008, CBC)

Green Leader Elizabeth May will be allowed into the federal leaders' debates, Canada's main broadcast networks confirmed on Wednesday. The news came after Conservative Leader Stephen Harper and NDP Leader Jack Layton indicated earlier on Wednesday that they no longer oppose May's participation in the debates on Oct. 1 and Oct. 2.

This election just got interesting.

Winners: Canadians, your voices were heard for a change. Well done. Losers: Jack Layton and Stephen Harper. Duceppe too but he barely counts any more.

From non-broadcast media there appears to be a fairly broad consensus: The Green Party leader should be allowed to participate in the leaders debates.

Networks have lost their journalistic backbone (Chantel Hébert, The Star)

The Green party had a better case for participating in the televised debates of the 2008 campaign than the Bloc Québécois and the Reform party in 1993. Having opened the door 15 years ago to parties that were blatantly not in the running for power, why did the networks not stand up for Elizabeth May in this campaign?

In the 1993 election, the established parties were just as opposed to the addition of new debate players as the NDP and the Conservatives are today. They brought at least one solid objection to the fore and it was the fact that neither the Reform party, nor the Bloc Québécois, could claim to be national parties.

Reform had not yet extended its wings east of Manitoba. Moreover, Preston Manning was not bilingual. In the end, it was decided he would limit himself to an opening statement in French. Lucien Bouchard, on the hand, was granted full participation rights in both debates, a privilege his successor enjoys to this day.

The Green party runs candidates in every province and May is fluently bilingual. Over the past 12 months, the Green score in the national polls has ranged from 7 per cent to 13 per cent. Support for the Bloc Québécois over the same period has never exceeded 9 per cent.

Dion emerges smelling like a rose (Don Martin, National Post)

But as the only party leader to endorse the Green leader's participation, Mr. Dion claims the moral high ground as free-speech defender and polishes his credentials for women voters, even though a stellar Elizabeth May performance risks draining support away from the Liberals.

Let Elizabeth May speak (Former Prime Minister Joe Clark, The Globe and Mail)

Jason MacDonald, a spokesman for the network consortium, is quoted as saying that three parties - those led by Stephen Harper, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe - all opposed the participation of Ms. May in the so-called leaders debate, "and it became clear that if the Green Party were included, there would be no leaders debates."

That's blackmail. If these three men want to boycott a genuine debate, let them have the courage to do so openly. Let them also explain why, in a year when U.S. party establishments could not shut out an Obama or a McCain, it is appropriate for the Canadian party establishments to muzzle a significant voice for change.

I am not a supporter of any of the existing federal parties, including the Greens. But I am alarmed, and surprised, by how tightly the government now controls Parliament, how easily parties put their own interest ahead of the public interest, and how mean our public debate has become. We have to break that pattern, and one way to begin would be with a more inclusive leaders debate. I urge more Canadians to press these three leaders, and the broadcasting consortium they hide behind, to reconsider their exclusionary decision.

I am not a Green party member, nor a member of any party at this time. Even if I were affiliated elsewhere I'm confident that in the interest of a more wholesome democracy, I would call upon every Canadian, regardless of political affiliation, to demand Green Party leader Elizabeth May included in this election's Leader debates. This country needs more democracy and its the right thing to do.

If you want to take action, sign this on-line petition.

Here's a party that ran candidates in every riding in the country and received almost 700,000 votes in the last election. Including Quebeckers, who have the regional Bloc to mess up statistics, one of every twenty-two voters voted green in the last election. Excluding la belle province that ratio is even higher. They came closer to winning seats than they ever have. The Green Party jumped over a significant hurdle, earning sufficient votes to earn them a spot among the other large parties whereby they receive public funding based on the number of votes received. Climate change and environmentalism clearly is in the public eye in a way that it has never been before, and they have always been there to champion the issue.

I think their case for inclusion was more than strong enough on its own, and didn't require the stunt (which I do not support) leader Elizabeth May pulled last week in convincing ousted former Liberal West Vancouver Sunshine Coast MP Blair Wilson (who hasn't a hope of being re-elected) to become the Green Party's "first" MP on the eve of an election.

Media reports indicate that the broadcast consortium which runs the debate decided against including May because of threats from Stephen Harper and Jack Layton that they'd pull out. Broadcasters claim they bowed to pressure from the Conservatives and NDP as they didn't want to air a debate between only May and Dion.

"There's been no new party elected to the House of Commons since the last election, and one of the people who wanted to participate in the debate is supporting one of the others for prime minister," said Layton, referring to May's endorsement of Dion. "The networks decided they will stick with the old rules and we support that, had they not so decided we would have had to go back and think about what all that means." Jack Layton

"We said we would not accept the invitation to participate because the Greens did not have an elected member of Parliament", said Brad Lavigne, NDP spokesperson.

Duceppe was happy with the outcome, claiming "the rules are the rules". Only there are no rules - the consortium makes its own rules up. Harper claimed May could not participate because she was in effect another Liberal candidate, which is rubbish. The Liberals have as much to fear from May and the Greens as any party. Even if it were true, in past years we did in fact see two "conservative" parties in debates. The Reform and Progressive Conservatives both had leaders in debate; the Canadian Alliance and PC's likewise. Reform had Preston Manning in debate when they had only one MP, Deborah Gray, which is all the more galling because like the Bloc at the time Reform was a regional party that did not run across the country.

Whether one agrees with the Blair Wilson floor crossing or not, he was still an elected MP when he joined the Greens. The Bloc earned their first invite to the debate in exactly the same way.

Imagine that, the media being pushed around by Harper and Layton. Ridiculous! The media have sufficient influence and power to make sure that Harper and Layton's non-attendance is a non-starter. With every reporter in the country hounding Harper and Layton "what are you afraid of" there is no way either would be able to take a pass on the debate without serious risk to their campaigns.

An election should expose Canadians to the broadest diversity of ideas. Greens have paid their dues. We, the public, are paying them to exist, like we pay all major parties. Lets see what they have to say.

Public backlash could make this undemocratic exclusion from the debates go away. Start your non-polluting alternative-energy engines... go!

PS: My sense is that public backlash might hurt some parties electorally if they don't allow May into the debates. Times seem to be changing.