By Lori Turnbull

April 22, 2025

Canada’s federal political party leaders took to a Montreal stage on April 16th and 17th to contrast their views, in French and English, on the core issues defining this campaign ahead of the April 28th election.

Unfortunately, the exchanges between the candidates had to compete for attention with the drama surrounding the Leaders’ Debate Commission and its (mis)handling of the post-debate scrums. The commission allowed Rebel News, a registered third-party advocacy group, to dominate the leaders’ scrum after the French debate.

Then, the scrum after the English debate was canceled altogether when, due to security concerns arising from arguments between Rebel News representatives and members of the media, the commission’s executive director Michel Cormier concluded that the commission could no longer provide a “proper environment” for a scrum.

This is no minor incident. In an election that has been described as perhaps the most consequential of our time, during which more than a quarter of Canadians have been exposed to “fake political content” on social media that is “sophisticated and more politically polarizing,” the ability of the independent media to pose direct questions to politicians before a public audience is crucial.

The events of the week have cost the commission its legitimacy. Its stock has fallen sharply enough that calls for its demise were rampant on social media during and after the debates. The leaders’ scrums debacle, specifically with regard to the commission’s poor judgement when it came to dealing with Rebel News, has cast doubt on the overall functionality and effectiveness of the Leaders’ Debate Commission. It is far from clear that having an independent commission to organize leaders’ debates is any better than the old model of letting the media sort it out.

In fact, it is likely worse. While the commission allowed Rebel News to pose multiple questions to leaders out of fear of getting sued, media organizations surely would have shown no such deference. Further, the commission’s tendency toward risk aversion, though understandable, is an obstacle in the evolution and improvement of federal leaders’ debates in Canada. The commission was created to solve a fake problem and should be dissolved, with the logistics of leaders’ debates given back to media organizations.

The Leaders’ Debates Commission was created in 2018 to bring an end, once and for all, to the controversy over the criteria for participation in federal leaders’ debates. Before the commission was launched, leaders’ debates were run by a consortium of the main media networks in Canada, including CBC, CTV, Global, and TVA. Participation was typically limited to parties with seats in the House of Commons.

There had been disagreements over the years that had led to calls for an independent commission for debates similar to the US Commission on Presidential Debates, but the situation boiled over in 2008, when the consortium decided to exclude the Greens from the leaders’ debate even though Liberal MP Blair Wilson had crossed the floor to become a Green MP just before the election was called, technically meeting the criterion for representation in the House.

The Conservatives and the New Democrats were both completely opposed to the Greens’ participation and both Stephen Harper and Jack Layton threated to boycott if Greens leader Elizabeth May, who was not yet. sitting MP, was invited. Liberal leader Stéphane Dion said if Stephen Harper was not going to show up, he would not either. But in the end, after loud and sustained public outcry on May’s behalf, Harper and Layton backed down and May was included after all.

We might consider trying the Australian model, where in addition to two leaders’ debates, there is also a separate treasurers’ debate and an energy debate.

In 2015, as part of a broader effort to “modernize” democratic institutions, Justin Trudeau’s Liberals pitched the idea of an independent debates commission to “organize leaders’ debates and bring an end to partisan gamesmanship.” The commission is supposed to be the impartial adult in the room and come up with criteria for inclusion that everyone can live with.

Frankly, there is nothing wrong with a little controversy over the criteria for participation in leaders’ debates. These discussions are a healthy part of democracy. And, in the 2008 case when things got a little hairy, public pressure for Elizabeth May’s inclusion ended up winning the day – as it ought to have – and the leaders all showed up for the debates. There was no need for an independent commission to solve anything; the consortium did the right thing.

Reasonable people can disagree about where and how to draw the line for participation. As an independent body appointed by the government to create a fair process for all, the commission has an understandable interest in taking a risk-averse approach. The last thing the commission wants is to be accused of creating rules that favour one party over another, so its members err on the side of inclusion and equality for all.

To participate in leaders’ debates, parties must meet at least two of the following three criteria: they must have at least one seat in the House of Commons on the day the election is called; 28 days before the election, they must endorse candidates in at least 90% of federal ridings; and, 28 days before the election, they must hold a minimum of 4% of popular support as determined by national public opinion polls.

These criteria set a low bar for inclusion, particularly given that parties need meet only two of these criteria rather than all three. This is likely an attempt to avoid controversy by giving parties with even just one seat in the House an onramp to participate. But, as we learned when the Greens were disinvited because their decision to drop candidates put them below the 90% threshold, disagreements about inclusion can still occur. And there is nothing wrong with that.

In most cases, chances are that an independent commission will draw essentially the same conclusions as the consortium would have about who should be included. In light of this, it’s difficult to argue that the governance of leaders’ debates has changed much with an independent commission. However, it’s possible that we are missing an opportunity to get creative. Because the commission is an arm of the government, it must avoid accusations of partisanship of any kind. But this risks preventing even modest risk-taking in the design of leaders’ debates.

Media organizations in a consortium model would have more room to experiment with new ideas and risk-manage any public blowback. For example, we might consider trying the Australian model, where in addition to two leaders’ debates, there is also a separate treasurers’ debate and an energy debate. This approach could lead to more substantive coverage of policy areas and help voters to make an informed choice.

If the media wanted to be really brave, they could hold a separate debate just for the prime minister and the leader of the opposition in addition to a debate for all of the leaders. No doubt, this would draw heavy criticism from the smaller parties but if the public wanted it, the media could justify it. And it could be very helpful for voters to see a one-on-one exchange between the two people most likely to be elected to the top job.

As was the case in 2008, public pressure would come out in force if the consortium strayed from expectations and norms around fairness and equality. This is exactly how democracy is supposed to work.

The commission’s top-down approach does not fit within the context of a healthy democracy, as it has no role for the public and there is no accountability of commissioners for the decisions they make. The Leaders’ Debate Commission is not a solution to a problem. It was born of an effort to bureaucratize something that is and ought to remain political.

Policy Columnist Lori Turnbull is a professor in the Faculty of Management at Dalhousie University.