The Canadian Broadcast Consortium has decided not to permit the Green Party leader to be included in the debates being planned just before the May 2 national parliamentary election. See this story. The policy is that only parties with elected members may be invited. The Green Party has high hopes of electing its first member of Parliament this year, but so far it hasn’t elected anyone to that body. Thanks to Thomas Jones for the link.
The Canadian Green Party has a candidate in every district in Canada this year, while the Bloc Quebecois, which is included in the debate, only runs in Quebec.
If the Bloc are there the Greens should be there.
Are these people being advised by the same people who organized the Fox News GOP debate back in January of 2008 in New Hampshire? The exclusion makes no sense.
Wow, the CBC must really hate third parties…
…except…
What? The NDP and Bloc are also being allowed to debate even though there’s no chance of their leader becoming PM? Why is that? Could it be they actually have popular support?
Yes. That’s exactly why.
Parties should be offered parity with existing parties just because they exist.
If the leader of the Bloc Quebecois can be in the debates and they only represent one province in Canada then Elizabeth should be there … this is ridiculous.
The consortium wants people to be lazy, overweight,ignorant, consumers. That way they buy more of the crap that they advertise on their networks. Its a blatant conflict of interest.
In 2008 the Greens, with candidates across the country, received 937,613 votes, but, because of the vote distribution, obtained no seats. The Bloc received 1,379,991 votes, and obtained 49 seats because of vote distribution. The Greens are a valid political party with a significant following. For someone to decide that if they don’t have seats they don’t get to debate is to show contempt for over 937,000 people and the full scope of our democratic system.
Are we still a democracy? Are all parties given a voice? …or just the ones recognized by the media as worthy of recognition. The Green Party is giving the electorate an opportunity to choose candidates in ridings across Canada. This should entitle their leader to debate issues with other party leaders.
I agree.
By denying any party that has no elected reps in Parliament, the Broadcast Consortium is ensuring that no new parties will ever have an opportunity to be successful in Canada. That is undemocratic. If they want new parties to be legitimate alternatives, base the entry on number of signed members to that party, or number of votes received in the last election.
The broadcast consortium should not be dictating what we see and listen to. Are we a democratic country or not? If the Bloc is there so should the Green Party.
Does the Canadian GP have any legal options to get a court to force their inclusion?
I hope the GP is really focusing their money and resources to get the party leader elected in that BC riding. I would tend to support the NDP, but I’m for more democracy and fairness, not less.
How many ridings ate the LPC and CHP contesting? Does anyone know?
The Greens only got into the televised debate back in ’08 because of a technicality. A liberal MP defected to the Greens just before the 08′ election (Wilson was not elected as a Green MP, and never actually got to sit in parliament as one either, as he lost his seat during the ’08 election) thus giving the Greens a legal technicality to enter into the debates. Now, I support the Green (and other parties) inclusion into the national debates, but we should keep in mind the circumstances how they got into their last time. Hopefully the laws will change so the CBC will be forced to have a more inclusive criteria to include other parties as well.
The media’s job is to report what is going on, not manipulate what is to go on! Of course the GP should be in the debate. Let the voters decide with full input from all the Canadidates. This Consortium should not be able to weild this power. They clearly are not representing the best interests of the people or democracy. Shame on you!
I think that either all parties should be involved or there should be no parties to have a debate. Who is to make the decision about who is involved or not, do they have an agenda of their own. To me it is rude and unfair not to include all the parties.
Money talks. Elizabeth May doesn’t spend thousands of $ on the TV networks, so they won’t let her debate. Sounding more American every day. the more money you have is a distinct advantage. I thought we were better than that. and they want to get rid of the leveling taxpayer subsidy for elections. What next.
Admit it. No money, no consideration.
do you really want people to watch the debate. Not me for one.