Rob Breakenridge: The debate commission has made things worse. Scrap it
In the span of just a few days we witnessed the commission stepping on not one, not two, but three huge rakes.
By: Rob Breakenridge
Canadians could be forgiven for being unaware of the existence of the Leaders’ Debate Commission. Elections get called and debates just inevitably follow; we don’t think too much about how or why that happens.
But now, suddenly, Canadians have become very aware of the commission’s existence — and not in a good way. After three election cycles, millions of dollars, and a series of recent fiascos, it’s fair to conclude that the commission is a waste of money and completely unnecessary. It’s time to bid it adieu.
The idea of a commission was always a solution in search of a problem. Prior to its creation in 2018, we managed just fine in this regard. Yes, there was a disagreement between then-Conservative leader Stephen Harper and the consortium of broadcasters in the 2015 election, which seems to have been a factor in spurring the Trudeau government to nationalize the debate business. But it should be noted that in the 2015 election campaign we had a total of five leaders’ debates (three in English and two in French), at zero cost to taxpayers. It’s also worth pointing out that turnout in 2015 was slightly higher than in either 2019 or 2021. So we didn’t end up with more and better debates, nor did we end up with a more engaged electorate. What exactly was the point, then?
Given that the two commission-sanctioned debates (one in each official language) were all that we were going to get in the 2025 campaign, it was most unfortunate to have the commission’s missteps almost overshadow the debates themselves. The silver lining, I suppose, is at least now its shortcomings are on full display for all to see.
In the span of just a few days we witnessed the commission stepping on not one, not two, but three huge rakes. After having devoured north of $10 million in taxpayer dollars since its inception, one might have expected at least a much more smooth and efficient operation.
The perhaps least consequential was the last-minute decision to move up the time of the French-language debate so as to minimize the conflict with a do-or-die game for the Montreal Canadiens. No doubt many in Quebec were eager to cheer on the Habs that night, but it certainly undercuts the idea that these are two national debates. If these are merely the Quebec debate and the rest-of-Canada debate, then surely the presence of the Bloc Québécois leader is not required in the latter.
But just who would grace the stage in the English-language debate became another matter of controversy. For as much as the Green Party seems to be a non-factor in this election, they were invited to be a part of the leaders’ debates. And then, out of nowhere, they were uninvited.
Even with the commission’s low threshold for participation, the case for the Greens was tenuous at best. For inclusion, a party must meet two of the following criteria: have candidates in at least 90 per cent of all ridings, have at least one sitting MP who's been elected under its banner, and must have at least four per cent support in national opinion polls.
You’d have to squint pretty hard to see such favourable poll numbers for the Greens, although with the margin of error on most polls, there’s not much difference between four and one per cent. You’d also need a pretty charitable interpretation of “candidate” to include the Greens.
The list of candidates, as per Elections Canada, would put the Green Party at roughly 68 per cent — well short of 90. The party, though, submitted a list to the debate commission which included potential or endorsed candidates. The commission was okay with this … until they weren’t.
The Greens didn’t help their cause by abruptly deciding to pull candidates from just over a dozen ridings in a "strategic decision" to hurt the Conservative party. But even without those candidates, they’d still be within the threshold that the commission had generously decided to accept.
On Wednesday — the day of the French-language debate — the commission reversed course and announced that the Greens were out, declaring that “deliberately reducing the number of candidates running for strategic reasons is inconsistent with the Commission's interpretation of party viability (...) the Commission concludes that the inclusion of the leader of the Green Party of Canada in these circumstances would undermine the integrity of the debates and the interests of the voting public."
It’s all very confusing and arbitrary, which only weakens the argument that we need a government commission to rescue us from confusion and arbitrariness.
And then there were the scrums. Here’s where things really went off the rails.
Media outlets were permitted to have one journalist each at the post-debate scrums where the leaders would then face questions from reporters. One particular right-wing website somehow managed to convince the commission to allow them five representatives, and they — along with a few other outlets — certainly made the most of their numerical advantage following the French debate, to the evident displeasure of "mainstream" outlets.
The following night turned into an even bigger gongshow, with shouting off stage. It appears the commission couldn’t quite figure out how to manage the whole situation and instead, in a panic, just cancelled the scrums altogether. Initially they claimed it was due to “security concerns” which then morphed into an inability to provide a “proper environment.”
These “alternative” news and advocacy sites and groups are not new, nor is the tension surrounding the question of who is a “journalist” and who should be allowed to cover things such as Parliament, news conferences, and, yes, even debates. But in no other context or setting has it become such an absurd fiasco.
We’ve had numerous recent provincial elections that featured debates without all the drama and cost we’ve been subjected to by the federal commission. As noted, there were no major problems with federal debates prior to 2018. It’s a very Ottawa mindset to conclude that we need a bloated government agency to take charge of something that is functioning efficiently outside of government hands.
The debate itself (the English one) was fine, by the way. Moderator Steve Paikin did a commendable job. However, it should not have been the only debate.
The commission doesn’t preclude other organizations from holding their own debates, but it has proven to be an obstacle to frequency and variety. Why not a debate with more participants? Why not also a one-on-one debate between the two front-runners? How about some issue-specific or region-specific debates? We can dare to dream, I suppose.
The commission hasn’t made things better. In this important and consequential election, it fell flat on its face. We don’t need it and we’ll be better off without it.
Rob Breakenridge is a Calgary-based broadcaster and writer. He can be found at breakenridge.ca and on X (Twitter) @RobBreakenridge and reached at rob.breakenridge@gmail.com.
The Line is entirely reader and advertiser funded — no federal subsidy for us! If you value our work, have already subscribed, and still worry about what will happen when the conventional media finishes collapsing, please make a donation today.
The Line is Canada’s last, best hope for irreverent commentary. We reject bullshit. We love lively writing. Please consider supporting us by subscribing. Please follow us on social media! Facebook x 2: On The Line Podcast here, and The Line Podcast here. Instagram. Also: TikTok. BlueSky. LinkedIn. Matt’s Twitter. The Line’s Twitter. Jen’s Twitter. Contact us by email: lineeditor@protonmail.com.
"As noted, there were no major problems with _________ prior to 2018. It’s a very Ottawa mindset to conclude that we need a bloated government agency to take charge of something that is functioning efficiently outside of government hands."
If one had to capture "what went wrong" over the past decade of the Trudeau Liberals, this paragraph about sums it up.
For many, many, files.
To me, the entire debate format as envisioned by a government sponsored Debate Commission just reeks of the Laurentian view of Canada.
Two debates. One entirely in French. In Montreal. Two time zones removed from Alberta and three from BC. A second debate entirely in English. In Montreal, with the same time zone issues as the French Debate. The English language debate is broad ranging that discusses lots of topics but shallow on information sharing.
This brings me to ask the obvious: why wouldn’t a Debate Commission look past the outskirts of Toronto and see the possibilities of having a debate in western Canada? Winnipeg is the geographical centre of the action, or how about Edmonton, Calgary or Victoria?
This is a tenuous time for our federation. By appearances the central Canadian voters are choosing to vote in another Liberal government. This is not what many western Canadian voters are hoping for, as yet another government looms that is indifferent to the differing economic priorities held by those in the resource and agricultural sectors. The Debate Commission could have opened up a badly needed dialogue that featured a debate held in the west and focused on the issues that central Canada yawns at.