Elizabeth May: “If you look at precedence, the Greens are in the debates in 2015”

147 posts / 0 new
Last post
mark_alfred

Further looking into it, it seems this is the Broadcast Consortium's stance:

Quote:
Following the 1988 federal election, a prosecution was instituted by the Green Party against CBC, CTV and Global, claiming that these broadcasters had breached the Television Broadcasting Regulations, 1987, because they had not included the Green Party in a leaders' debate during a federal general election and had failed to provide the Party with some accommodating time. In R.v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation et al., [1993]51 C.P.R.(3d), the Ontario Court of Appeal held that debates were not of a partisan political character. The Court believed that while the participants in a debate may very well be partisan, the program itself, because it presented more than one view, was not. The Court therefore ruled that debates were not covered by the relevant section of the regulations. The Supreme Court of Canada refused to grant leave to appeal.

In view of this judgment, the Commission will no longer require that so-called "debates" programs feature all rival parties or candidates in one or more programs. The Commission considers that licensees will have satisfied the balance requirement of the Broadcasting Act if reasonable steps are taken to ensure that their audiences are informed of the main issues and of the positions of all candidates and registered parties on those issues through their public affairs programs generally. The Commission still believes that news coverage should generally be left to the editorial judgment of the broadcast licensee.

Basically, as long as they've given some reasonable coverage elsewhere of smaller parties, they do not feel that there is an obligation for these parties to be present in the debate.

mark_alfred

From last election, the Greens did have a court challenge in regarding the debates.  It wasn't heard before the debates last time because, apparently, there wasn't enough time.  But the Greens indicated that they would continue to pursue it then.

Quote:

[Green] Party lawyers have suggested that parties that receive more than 2 per cent of the vote should be allowed to be represented in the debates.

May said her party would go ahead with the court challenge, although by the time it made its way through the system it would be too late for her to participate in the upcoming debates.

I'd be curious to know if they did follow through.

Sean in Ottawa

Debater wrote:

Brachina wrote:

 perhaps official party status should be the requirement?

Then the NDP couldn't have been in the 1997 debates since they lost official party status in 1993.

Same thing with the PC party

Debater

True, although I was referencing the NDP since Brachina is an NDP supporter.

Having been a very small party itself at one point, one would assume the NDP would support the right of the Greens to have debate participation.

NorthReport

The only reason Debater is pushing for May is Liberals think having May in the debates will hurt the NDP and help the Liberals.

But if Harper kept May out of the debates last time, there is nothing to indicate he has changed his mind. 

 

 

Debater

It's not up to Harper to decide whether May is in the debates.

He may be the King to you, but he doesn't get to decide everything in this country just yet.

Stockholm

I've never understood why Liberals keep sucking up to Elizabeth May - to the extent that the Green party gets any support it actually tends to come from the Liberals more than from any other party.

Debater

I've never understood why NDPers keep trying to bash Elizabeth May.  What are they so afraid of?

Rokossovsky

I am not afraid of saying she doesn't have anything, has no apparent principles beyond self-promotion, and she presents herself as the leader of a "progressive" environmentalist party in the tradition of the international "Green Party" group of Europe, when in fact her organization is not even affiliated, probably because their neo-liberal policies simply do not fit with the left-wing traditions of the European Greens.

Rokossovsky

What can you really say about the leader of a so called "Green Party" that has a platform that intends to accelerate Tar Sands production by building refining capacity in Alberta as part of a plan to convert that production over to plastic products by 2100, in 85 years, and perform the trick of cutting GHG emissions by 80% by 2050 at the same time.

There is a reason that these apparently disjointed policies all have best before date way off in the future.

Marco C

I for one feel that the Greens have for a while now only been Green in name only, but that's not fear that truth. (and I've talked to many exgreens who feel the same way.)

 

As for the debates, personally I don't think the Greens or the BQ have any place in them. While the BQ could at least claim they have been a political force since the early 90's, the Greens have no leg to stand on when asking for a place at the debates.

 

Elizabeth May is a fine MP by all accounts, but her party is not a political force either in seats or votes cast for, just having a party running candidates in all ridings isn't reason to let her in. If they allow her into the debates then you have to let in the BQ, FD, CHP, Libertarians and ever other party thats willing to field 338 paper candidates. Sorry but I don't think it adds to our democracy allowing every party with an oppinion a voice on a national stage, let them run and win seats and show the public wants them there come the next cycle. 

 

But trying to force your way onto the stage by claiming that the "Big Three" are keeping her off is nothing more then a tantrum.

Debater

Elizabeth May was told in 2011 that if she won a seat in the House of Commons, she would be allowed to be in the 2015 debates.

Peter Mansbridge even said so the night she won her seat on May 2, 2011.

So the broadcasters are going to have to explain to both the Greens and the Canadian public why she should be denied the opportunity after being promised a spot.

Rokossovsky

Gee. Now Peter Mansbridge runs the CBC, and the other networks too.

How will we live this down? The honour of the country besmirched by the off the cuff-comments of a national icon, and the broadcast industry shamed.

Rokossovsky

This entire thread should have ended on the bottom of page one, with this:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The problem is there are no rules other than the ones made up after an election.

Debater

How can this topic end until a decision is made on the debates?

Rokossovsky

The decision will primarily be made by Stephen Harper, since no one is coming unless he is there. Therefore, Stephen gets to decide. The NDP and the Liberals get to weigh in an shift the tables around a bit. You can argue about the injustice then. The broadcaster people will take care of the flower arrantements.

As Thomas Mulcair observed: "If Stephen Harper is there, I can guarantee that I will too," or words to that effect. Tom, accurate in his summary of the reality, in few words, as always.

I know this won't stop you from trying to make hay out of a completely hypothetical debate without evidence, in order to vilify the NDP.

Debater

Stephen does not get to decide.  He can't afford not to show up or he will look bad, so he has to attend.  He can't boycott the debates just because he doesn't want Elizabeth May there.  He risks causing a huge public outcry if he does something like that.

Btw, the last setence of your post is bizarre:

I know this won't stop you from trying to make hay out of a completely hypothetical debate without evidence, in order to vilify the NDP.

What on earth?  What "completely hypothetical debate"?  Who's trying to "vilify the NDP"?

Marco C

You've been trying to paint the NDP as being against the Green's in any debate, not sure I would call it vilifying but it's definatly accusitory.

 

The point is the NDP as a party have no oppinion on Elizabeth May in the debate. Many of us personaly (myself included) don't want her there for one reason or anothing, but our personal feelings are not relective of party policy or oppinion.

wage zombie

addictedtomyipod wrote:

A reminder that E May wanted to be in the debates for the 2011 election. They had no elected MPs then and it didn't seem to matter with her. She is entitled to be in the debates, no matter what.She also doesn't think the other two parties should be included.

Is this simply your speculation or has May said this?  I would think that would be a hard position for her to defend.

Rokossovsky

Debater wrote:

Stephen does not get to decide.  He can't afford not to show up or he will look bad, so he has to attend.  He can't boycott the debates just because he doesn't want Elizabeth May there.  He risks causing a huge public outcry if he does something like that.

Oh. Most certainly he does. He is the one with the most political power. Without him the debate is meaningless. Now of course this is not "absolute" power, but Harper will have the biggest say in the game plan.

No wonder you support the Liberals, you have no idea how power politics works, and think there is a rule book that one can use as grease so that you can slither into tight cracks between stones and find a niche to feed and breed in.

Rokossovsky

wage zombie wrote:

addictedtomyipod wrote:

A reminder that E May wanted to be in the debates for the 2011 election. They had no elected MPs then and it didn't seem to matter with her. She is entitled to be in the debates, no matter what.She also doesn't think the other two parties should be included.

Is this simply your speculation or has May said this?  I would think that would be a hard position for her to defend.

It should be, but she is breezily ignoring the fact her "criteria" for inclusion would suggest that the other parties should be included, yet she makes no mention of that. Perhaps, she feels that defending the rights of "separatist" Quebeckers might offend her revanchist anglo-base.

It certainly looks like its all about her.

Brachina

 since we're talking about the debates, has anyone watched the debate on House of Cards 3rd Season? 

 No player reminds of one major leader in Canada, but each had a mix of them that made the debate interesting.

 

 Possible Spoilers.

 

 Like Underwood Mulcair and Harper will speak to thier experience and in Mulcair's case attack Trudeau's silver spoon. 

 Like Drunthers (I think that's her name) Mulcair's policies are more to the left and there is a focus on using corporate taxation to help fund plans. 

 Trudeau will have to defend his inexperience like Drunthers (although her 'inexperience' is vastly different then his).

 Jackie Sharp's military cheerleading is something Harper would likely try and fail at, given he hid in a closet. 

 Ecomomically Harper would be most like Underwood, Mulcair Drunthers, and Trudeau Jackie Sharp whose economic position is vague, but seems to be inbetween the others.

 

 

 

 

addictedtomyipod

wage zombie wrote:

addictedtomyipod wrote:

A reminder that E May wanted to be in the debates for the 2011 election. They had no elected MPs then and it didn't seem to matter with her. She is entitled to be in the debates, no matter what.She also doesn't think the other two parties should be included.

Is this simply your speculation or has May said this?  I would think that would be a hard position for her to defend.

 

I recently watched a brief exchange with Peter van Dusen and May in the hallway when she was asked about the other parties being included in the debates.  She replied not necessarily because their circumstances are different.  The BQ's leader is not an elected MP and the FD MP's were not elected under that party's banner. 

I tried to search it out on CPAC but can't find it.

Debater

Elizabeth May Gains Trudeau's Support To Include Greens In 2015 Election Debate

04/08/2015 9:15 pm EDT

OTTAWA — Green party Leader Elizabeth May has scored Justin Trudeau’s support to be in the leaders’ debate, but it is still unclear whether that will land her a spot on stage.

The Liberal leader spoke with May on Wednesday and said the Grits plan to argue for her participation in this year’s federal election debates, she told The Huffington Post Canada.

“It makes me happy,” she said. “He said he had two reasons: One was that he thinks we need to make sure that the environment gets discussed and debated adequately in the debates and for that he thinks I should be there.

The other [reason], which I really like, is that his daughter will be watching her dad in the debate, and he doesn’t want her to think it’s a boys-only thing to be in public life,” May said.

“He wants her to see there is a place at the table for women leaders.”

---

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/04/08/green-party-leaders-debate-eliza...

Sean in Ottawa

If Harper does not want to shop up for a debate that isno excuse for the others. They should have a debate with a cooked turkey with the CPC logo on it if he does not show up.

There are many voters trying to decide among opposition parties. Those that like Harper are unlikely to listen to anything else.

Rokossovsky

An opposition party debate would be a great idea, and should be done anyway.

nicky

Trudeau looks like he is trying to avoid the Women's Issues debate because as Pondering concedes in another thread, he is not good at debates.

He will not be able to avoid the Leaders Debate in the election without dire political consequences. He therefore wants to soften his exposure in three ways. Minimizing the number of debates. Having the maximum number of participants ( viz the recent UK debate where Cameron escaped serious attack because seven leaders competed for airtime). And by having Liz May next to him to run interference.

Rokossovsky

That might be Harper's take on things, too, but his ego might get in the way of that sound political thinking.

Debater

nicky wrote:
Trudeau looks like he is trying to avoid the Women's Issues debate because as Pondering concedes in another thread, he is not good at debates. He will not be able to avoid the Leaders Debate in the election without dire political consequences. He therefore wants to soften his exposure in three ways. Minimizing the number of debates. Having the maximum number of participants ( viz the recent UK debate where Cameron escaped serious attack because seven leaders competed for airtime). And by having Liz May next to him to run interference.

Trudeau would never consider not showing up for the Leaders Debate.  Nor would any other leader.  I can't remember any instance of a major party leader not showing up for the Leaders Debate.

So all this supposition about Trudeau (or Harper) skipping the major Leaders Debate is rather foolish.

Some people here are just projecting their own opinions onto what they think will happen or what they think the motivation of all the participants is.

As for the "Women's Issues" debate, it's too early to know what will happen with that.  It's not a regular debate, and Harper hasn't agreed to participate, either.  Even the regular Leaders Debate hasn't been worked out yet.  We don't know who will be part of that one, but we do know Trudeau supports May being there.  Does Mulcair support May being present?

nicky

Does May support Fortin and Bouchard being in the debates?

Debater

nicky wrote:

Does May support Fortin and Bouchard being in the debates?

I don't know.  I guess we'll find out.  I'm more interested in what Mulcair thinks than May.

And I think you mean Beaulieu, not Bouchard.  (Although if Bouchard comes back to lead the BQ that could raise the BQ support!) Wink

Rokossovsky

Mulcair thinks that if Harper is there, so will he be.

Debater

If Mulcair & Harper are there, so will Trudeau be.

Rokossovsky

Right. So, you have Mulcair's answer, it is really up to Harper which leaders will be present.

addictedtomyipod

nicky wrote:

Does May support Fortin and Bouchard being in the debates?

Read #123

nicky

If May doesn't think either Fortin or Beaulieu (thanks for the correction Debater) should be included it's a little hard for her to argue for her own inclusion.

Fortin's party has 2 MPs, same as the Greens. Beaulieu's elected four MPs last time, although it currently only has two, and  got almost twice as many votes as the Greens.

NorthReport

May's presence at the debates offers protection from Trudeau's real opponent -  it's not Harper

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/rex-murphy-mays-presence-at-th...

nicky

Rex Murphy IS sometimes right:

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/rex-murphy-mays-presence-at-th...

"More than that, however, her presence offers protection of a kind from Trudeau’s real opponent — who is not Harper. It is Thomas Mulcair. Mulcair is the real challenge for the Liberals in the election to come. The New Democratic Party must be shaken from its strong number of seats if the Liberals are to have real hope of displacing Harper

But Mulcair is the better debater. We have seen that in the Commons and outside. He is a master of the specific. He has an organized and well-focused mind. Trudeau is a vague waffler — he has a patter of stock phrases about values and being Canadian, which sell well in fan gatherings, but don’t impress in closer encounters. With May at his side, we have something of an informal tag-team arrangement — and less time for actual interaction  between the three leaders who really have something on the line. The arrangement lessens the focus on Trudeau, spreads the risk and he, being the weakest debater, cannot but see the advantage on an extra player on the stage.

So this commendably chivalrous little gesture is not entirely unmixed self-interest for Trudeau."

 

 

 

 

PrairieDemocrat15

Debater wrote:

If Murray Rankin is so pro-environment, he could have run for the Green Party.

Being pro-environment is exactly why Rankin should not run for the Green Party. Last election, independant environmentalist groups that reviewed party platforms said the NDP, not the Greens, had the best environmental policies.

If Rankin if an environmentalist (he is), why should he run for a party (the Greens) that want to dump raw sewage into the Pacific Ocean?

Debater

ELIZABETH MAY just sent this Tweet:

-

This just in -- Consortium has invited #GPC to first debates meeting. I'm in #thedebates! #cdnpoli

https://twitter.com/ElizabethMay/status/588098780337197057

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Time to rehearse with the Liberals.

"So, when you wink with your LEFT eye I should support you, and when you wink with your RIGHT eye I should pretend to oppose you..."

Debater

Green Party Twitter account :

-

. @ElizabethMay is in the debates! #GPC invited to first debate meeting #cdnpoli @CTVNews @globalnews @CBCNews @RadioCanada @tvanouvelles

https://twitter.com/CanadianGreens/status/588100340710424576

 

nicky

The Greens are proclaiming that May. Will be in t,he debates.

But the announcement seems only to say that she has been invited to a "meeting" concerning the debates.

Obviously there will be discussions to determine who will participate and on what terms.

Is she actually in? Or are they just talking about it?

nicky

The Greens are proclaiming that May will be in t,he debates.

But the announcement seems only to say that she has been invited to a "meeting" concerning the debates.

Obviously there will be discussions to determine who will participate and on what terms.

Is she actually in? Or are they just talking about it?

Debater

A valid question, Nicky (not something I can often say.Wink)

Here's what Laura Payton of CBC reports:

CBC News has learned the consortium of television broadcasters that arranges the federal election debates has issued letters to Canada's major federal parties, inviting them to a meeting next week in Toronto, and has included May and Beaulieu. The consortium will negotiate with the parties to set the terms of the debates, including the format and dates.

. . .

While May could be included in both French- and English-language debates, Beaulieu is being considered for French alone, according to the letter.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/2015-federal-election-debate-could-see-e...

Aristotleded24

Realistically, complaining about how May's inclusion in the debates helps or hurts Mulcair or Harper is pointless. It's not a decision we really have control over, it can come across as trying to game the debates for political advantage, and if it does turn out that May is included and that does make it harder to attack Harper, well the NDP will just have to take this into account and adjust its game plan accordingly.

Pages