However, the Elections Act’s lack of clear rules governing how parties must debate the pros and cons of specific topics creates a vacuum. Without public law providing a neutral forum, this year various news organizations, the Munk Centre on International Relations, the YWCA, taxpayers groups, and environmental bodies, hosted debates. These improvised structures for all-candidate and leaders’ debates, when combined with today’s party “messaging,” often generate more heat than light, more noise than nuance.
Without public law requiring the participation of leaders and candidates—the way procedural rules require appearing in court to argue one’s case— some pick and choose by calculating partisan advantage, not forthright presentation to citizens. Justin Trudeau boycotted two debates (resulting in their cancelation.) But so did Muskoka’s MPP Frank Miller, when leading Ontario’s Progressive Conservatives, believing himself better known than his opponents so debating them would just elevate their stature—a calculus akin to removing opposition parties from the legislature.
Brazenly placing party considerations above public interest is possible because the Election Act, which demands so much else of candidates and parties in elections, is limp about the most central aspect of parties seeking a mandate from electors: clear presentation and democratic candor. Consumers expect truth in advertising, not a barrage of personal attacks, manipulative messages, and glib promises to spend billions of non-existent dollars. Voters deserve even better when electing a parliament and, by extension, choosing a government.
In the 1950s, when Canada entered the television age, Parry Sound-Muskoka voters watched election debates on black-and-white screens over the one available channel. The debates lacked glitz but delivered straight goods. Minor leaders joined part way through, their airtime share based on their party’s Common’s representation. The Broadcasting Act, Election Act, and CBC Guidelines set general rules for free and paid airtime, but debates remained subject to arrangement.
Evolution of communications technology and campaign strategy has since changed everything. Campaign studio rehearsals for a leaders’ debate ensure well honed outrage, polished platitudes, and striving for show above substance. “Attack ads,” adopted from American campaigns, prompted Jagmet Sing to note Justin Trudeau and Andrew Sheer were contending over which of the two was worse, not better, to lead Canada.
When it’s left to interest groups to organize debates, rather than dispassionate election officials following Election Act rules agreed upon by Parliament, the hosting public policy organizations frame “their” debate. Parties become respondents, rather than initiators. This newspaper is making best possible sense of the hodgepodge, summarizing all local debates, live streaming leaders’ debates, and offering access to leading national coverage.
With accountability the essence of a self-governing democracy, suspending it in election campaigns is inexcusable democratic feebleness. Going forward, better structured debates could expand beyond leaders to each party’s spokespersons on environment, health, Indigenous affairs, finance, agriculture, and foreign affairs. Let real debate resume!
