Court File No. A-151-11

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

B E T W E E N:

ELIZABETH MAY Applicant

and

CBC/RADIO-CANADA, CTV TELEVISION NETWORK LTD., GLOBAL TELEVISION NETWORK INC. AND TVA GROUP INC. Respondents

AFFIDAVIT OF

I, ELIZABETH MAY, of the Town of Sidney in the Province of British

Columbia, AFFIRM AS FOLLOWS:

1. I am the Leader of the of Canada and as such have knowledge of

the matters deposed to in this Affidavit.

2. The is a registered national political party. In the

federal election of 2008, the Green Party of Canada ran candidates in 303

ridings.

3. For the 2011 federal election, the Green Party will have nominated candidates

in 308 ridings.

4. I was elected leader of the Green Party of Canada in 2006.

5. For the federal election scheduled for May 2, 2011, I am the candidate

representing the Green Party in the riding of Saanich-Gulf Islands on

Vancouver Island in .

1 6. Leaders’ debates are a major media event in general election campaigns; they

attract millions of viewers.

7. In 2006, only the Bloc Quebecois, the Conservative Party of Canada, the

Liberal Party of Canada, and the were invited to

participate in the leaders’ debates. In 2008, I was ultimately allowed to

participate along with the leaders of the parties who had been invited to

participate in 2006.

8. For the 2011 election, the Consortium has invited only the leaders of the

Conservative Party of Canada, the , the New

Democratic Party of Canada and the Bloc Quebecois to participate in the

leaders’ debates.

9. I expected to be included in the 2011 debates because I had been included in

the 2008 debates. But at approximately 2 pm Pacific time on Tuesday, March

29th, 2011, we learned second hand from that the

Consortium has refused to allow me to participate in the 2011 debates. I hoped

that it was a mistake but it was later confirmed. This is in stark contrast to the

previous practice of the Consortium in which Green Party representatives,

myself included, were invited.

10. I do not know why they excluded me. The only information I have been able

to obtain is from a press release issued by the Consortium and a Globe and

Mail interview with Troy Reeb, Chair of the Consortium.

2 11. The press release issued by the Consortium is attached to this Affidavit as

Exhibit “A” and interview with Troy Reeb is attached to

this Affidavit as Exhibit “B”.

12. The first leaders’ debate is scheduled for April 12, 2011.

13. I represented the Green Party at the only face to face meeting that took place

between the Green Party and the Consortium in January 2007. The

Consortium was then chaired by CBC News Director Tony Burman. All of

the members of the Consortium were represented. They explained that they

had no rules or criteria to govern their decision-making. They said their only

concern was to make a decision in the public interest.

14. In September 2008, prior to the 2008 election debates, the Consortium

reached me by telephone two days before the writ was dropped. At that time

the group was chaired by the head of the news division at CTV, Robert Hurst.

They invited me to put forward the case for our inclusion in the debates for

the 2008 elections. They asked me a number of pointed questions. They

again confirmed that they had no rules. They were clear that having a seat in

the House had never been a rule. It was announced on September 8, 2008 that

the Green Party was not invited to the debate; only the leaders of the

Conservative Party of Canada, the Liberal Party of Canada, the Bloc

Quebecois and the New Democratic Party were invited.

15. The Consortium’s press release in 2008 claimed that three out of four leaders

had taken the position that if I was included, they would not attend. That

turned out to be incorrect as both the leader of the Liberal Party and the leader

3 16. In 2008, thousands of Canadians expressed distress about the Consortium’s

failure to allow me to participate in the leaders’ debates. I retained legal

counsel to consider a legal action. Finally, before the first debate took place,

the leader of the New Democratic Party and the leader of the Conservative

Party of Canada withdrew their threat of a boycott if I were included. The

Consortium changed its mind and allowed me to participate.

17. Because of the high number of viewers that the debates attract and the media

publicity and analysis that follows for days afterwards, the parties whose

leaders participate in the debates gain a unique advantage in their ability to put

their parties’ platforms to the electorate. In this respect, there is no other event

during the election campaign that is comparable. In fact, the leaders’ debates

attract more voter interest than all the other campaign events put together.

18. My participation in the 2008 leaders’ debates was a significant factor in

increasing support for the Green Party. In that election, we received 6.8%

(937,613) of the national vote, up 2.3% from the 2006 election when we

received 4.5% (664,068) of the votes. We were the only party to receive more

votes in 2008 than in 2006.

19. During the 2001 provincial election in British Columbia, the Green Party was

allowed to participate in the leaders’ debates. The number of votes we

4 20. The Green Party can be clearly distinguished from all of the other parties that

have not been invited to participate in the debate.

21. In 2008, the Green Party received 6.8% of the vote. All of the other parties

excluded from the 2011 debates combined received less than one percent of

the vote in the 2008 election.

22. If a line must be drawn between those allowed and those not allowed to

participate in the debate, it should reflect popular support.

23. Popular support may be measured in a number of ways. For example, it could

be the number or percentage of votes received in the previous election, the

results of opinion polls or the number of MPs that a party has elected.

24. However, whether or not a party has an elected MP should not be the sole

criterion. In our electoral system, it is possible for a party to have strong

public support spread across the country in many ridings and still fail to elect

an MP. By contrast, a regional party with less national public support could

have more elected MPs.

25. In the 2008 federal election, the Green Party won more than 930,000 votes

across Canada and did not win a seat.

26. However, the fact that the Green Party won 6.8% of the national vote should

be a sufficient demonstration of public support to require our inclusion in any

leaders’ debates.

5 27. In addition, the broad public support for the Green Party leader’s inclusion in

the debates has been polled at over 70% in several polls since 2007. Dan Baril

Research and Harris Decima both polled for public preference on this matter

in January 2007.

28. An EKOS poll conducted between March 28th and 31st, 2011 reported that

8.7% of those polled intended to vote for the Green Party. This poll placed

public support for the Green Party ahead of public support for the Bloc

Quebecois, which was reported to be 8.5%.

29. Jean-Pierre Kingsley, former Chief Electoral Officer, wrote, upon hearing that

I was excluded the 2011 debates, "[t]he fact that [the Green Party] didn't get

anyone elected is not reflected in the six per cent of the votes that they got…

They don't have six per cent of the House. That's because of the vagaries of

our system. And with six per cent of the popular support, I think people

should reconsider having Elizabeth May in the leadership [debates]."1

30. Registered political parties that receive at least 2% of the national vote receive

$1.75 per vote per year (indexed to inflation) based on the results of the

previous election.

31. Only the Conservative Party of Canada, the Liberal Party of Canada, the Bloc

Quebecois, the New Democratic Party and the Green Party of Canada qualify

to receive $1.75 per vote per year. No other registered federal political parties

qualify.

1 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/03/30/cv-election-may-debates.html

6 32. Since the 2006 elections, the Green Party has received more than $1 million

each year in public funding. Because this amount is directly related to the

number of votes we receive, the Green Party’s exclusion from the debates will

have a negative financial impact.

33. For many years, there has been widespread public support for our inclusion in

the televised leaders’ debates.

34. In the few days since the Consortium refused to allow me to participate in the

2011 debates, there have been many expressions of support for my

participation, including the following:

"The Green Party, led by Elizabeth May, is the one political party clearly committed to averting the catastrophic consequences of our continuing to treat the Earth as mere dirt beneath our feet, so it is imperative that she be allowed to debate." -

"It's bad enough that the Greens got nearly a million votes last election yet got no seats. It's insane that they can't even get on TV. This is UTTERLY outrageous." -Andrew Coyne, national editor of Maclean’s magazine, via .

"It is a common sense proposition that anyone who received a million votes has a right to be heard… To exclude [May] is to invite yet another examination of why we as a society delegate to television networks the right to decide issues like this.” -Elly Alboim, Associate Professor of Journalism and former Parliamentary Bureau Chief for CBC TV News

“It is time for the people of this country to stand up and let the media and the politicians know that an election is a time for people’s voices to be heard and Elizabeth May speaks for a lot of people in this country." -, Sam Gindin Chair in Social Justice and Democracy at Ryerson University

7

“The decision by the broadcast consortium to exclude Green Party Leader Elizabeth May from the 2011 leaders' debate is mystifying. The broadcast consortium should first apologize to May and reverse its decision." -Vancouver Sun Editorial, 30 March 2011

“But forget about technicalities or historic precedents or fair play - especially since the broadcast consortium seems to make up the rules as it goes along. Simply put, the debate will be better if May takes part. Her presence will broaden the terms of the democratic discourse. It will lend more attention on environmental issues -which matter to plenty of Canadians who aren't Green supporters. It will make the whole debate less of a rote symbolic exercise. It will make it more likely that more people will watch.” - Edmonton Journal Editorial, 31 March 2011

“The Greens have been presenting themselves as a serious contender for several elections, and voters need a chance to learn more about what the party offers. And the tide might be turning. Partially as a result of the nuclear energy problems in Japan, the German equivalent of the Greens scored a landmark victory in a key state election last weekend, defeating a conservative party that had been in power for six decades. Elizabeth May has a legitimate voice, and she deserves to be part of the leaders' debate.” - Victoria Times Colonist, 31 March 2011

“Let’s hope Canadians are equally outraged by this shameful decision — which should be reversed — in 2011. Nearly a million Canadians, many among our youngest voters, cast ballots for the Greens in the last election. Taxpayers pay close to $2 million a year in funding, based on the 2008 vote count, to the Green Party. But the networks are saying there’s no place at the table for someone representing the views of those voters to debate the future direction of this country. That’s simply wrong. It’s particularly disconcerting that while voter turnout numbers have been at historic lows — and apathy about the political process among younger Canadians is a serious problem — the networks would freeze out the leader of a party that attracts a disproportionate number of younger voters.

8 Bloc Quebecois Leader , of course, represents a party running not one candidate outside , but voters in nine other provinces will hear him — in English and in French — during the debates, despite having no opportunity to vote for the Bloc. Ms. May’s party, on the other hand, will be an option on the ballot for voters from coast to coast, but debate viewers are to be denied a chance to hear her views before deciding how to vote. As we said three years ago before Ms. May’s exclusion from the 2008 debates was reversed, barring the leader of a party with policies and priorities that resonate with many Canadians is "a disgrace to our democracy." - Halifax Chronicle Herald, 31 March 2011

"Democracy demands that the media simply relay Parties positions without attempting to control the message. Excluding the leader of a party that garnered 1 out of every 15 votes in the 2008 federal election is just plain wrong” -Cal Millar, President of Channel Zero.

"Elizabeth May deserves to be in the debates and it is a travesty that a secret, unregulated, private committee of network representatives should have such power in a modern democracy." -Tom Axworthy, Centre for the Study of Democracy, Queens University.

"Democracies are rare in history; they are easily hijacked by tyrants, and lost by neglect. Harper has got away with far too much already. Many Canadians have little idea of the damage he has done to our constitution and our country, though Elizabeth May has certainly been keeping score. Now media barons are trying to shut her out of the campaign debates. This decision is an outrage. All Canadians, whether Green or not, are being cheated. May's clear and thoughtful voice must be heard." -Ronald Wright, Canadian author, Massey lectures “A Short History of Progress”.

“This is an election campaign and the debates form an important part of that. Canadians are entitled to points of view of all of the valid players and Elizabeth May and the Green Party are certainly valid participants.” -Rt. Hon. , , April 1 2011

35. Other prominent Canadians and Canadian organizations who support the

Green Party’s inclusion in the 2011 leaders’ debates include:

9 Margaret Atwood The Right Honourable Paul Martin The YWCA Common Frontiers Democracy Watch

36. Former Prime Minister writes:

“The basic purpose of national televised debates in a federal election campaign is to help voters make informed choices among significant political parties offering alternative policies. Clearly the Greens represent alternative policies -- and there can be no doubt about the significance of a party whose substantial support base in the country is reflected regularly in actual voting and in public opinion sampling. That reality has been reinforced, since the consortium's unilateral decision to exclude Ms. May from the 2011 Leaders' debate, by the expressed readiness of other national party leaders to have her included. In a situation where the Canadian people, and the Canadian parties, consider the Green Party to be significant enough to participate in the debate, this unilateral exclusion is unjustified and undemocratic.

Moreover, the decision to exclude flies in the face of the worldwide demand of democratic citizens for more open-ness and more alternatives. As education and technology are forcing political systems to open up, this consortium proposes to use its power to limit the choices Canadians can consider. There are good arguments to change the format of these debates; there is no justification for an arbitrary decision to shut out a significant and legitimate political party, like the Green Party.”

37. The Green Party’s platform is distinct from that of the other political parties.

Although the Green Party speaks to all political issues, we put particular

emphasis on environmental issues, which the other parties do not.

38. Any program such as the leaders’ debates that excludes the Green Party is

clearly partisan when it comes to environmental issues.

39. I make this affidavit in support of representations that the CRTC be ordered to

issue fair and transparent guidelines before the first leaders’ debates on April

12th, 2011 and for no other or improper purpose.

10