SDSG provincial candidates debated at the Cornwall Civic Complex February 19, in an event co-hosted by the Cornwall & Area Chamber of Commerce and the Social Development Council of Cornwall and Area. Debate organizers required parties to have official representation in the Ontario Legislature when the writ was dropped. Despite the Green Party holding two seats, its candidate, Nicholas Lapierre, a parachute candidate, was unable to attend due to weather. Liberal candidate Devon Monkhouse, also a parachute candidate, participated since his party also met the criteria. However, Stefan Kohut (New Blue Party) and Brigitte Sugrue (Ontario Party) were excluded under these rules. While Ontario has no provincial laws governing debate participation, the decision raises questions about who should be allowed to debate at a local level.
Excluding independent candidates and those from smaller parties can make debates more structured and focused. With fewer participants, major party candidates have more time to clearly present their policies, making it easier for voters to compare their positions. It also helps avoid overcrowding, where too many voices could lead to confusion or superficial exchanges. Additionally, limiting debate participation to frontrunners ensures that airtime is given to those most likely to form a government or influence policy, keeping the discussion relevant.
However, this approach also has significant downsides. It restricts voter access to alternative perspectives, reinforcing the dominance of established parties and making it harder for new ideas to gain traction. Candidates from smaller parties often advocate for reforms or highlight issues ignored by major parties, and excluding them limits political diversity. It also creates an uneven playing field, as major parties already benefit from greater media exposure and financial resources. Some voters may feel alienated from the process if their preferred candidates are left out, reducing overall political engagement.
There is also a risk of institutional bias when debate organizers decide who is included, potentially undermining democratic fairness. While efficiency and order are important, so is ensuring that a variety of voices is heard. Some countries address this by setting eligibility criteria, such as polling thresholds, to balance inclusiveness with practical debate management. Although polling thresholds are not always accurate. Ultimately, the decision to exclude candidates must weigh the benefits of a focused discussion against the democratic principle of fair representation.
To run for MPP in Ontario, candidates must be at least 18 years old, a Canadian citizen, and a resident of Ontario. They must submit nomination papers with at least 25 signatures from eligible electors in the electoral district, a $200 deposit, and, if affiliated, a party endorsement. Independent candidates must also register with Elections Ontario before fundraising or spending.
Although increasing the deposit requirement is an option, I prefer raising the signature threshold. Requiring 500 signatures instead of 25 for MPP candidacy would help ensure that only serious contenders with genuine community support qualify for the ballot. While more labour-intensive, this higher threshold would prevent last-minute or fringe candidates with minimal backing from diluting the race. It would also encourage deeper voter engagement, ensuring candidates are truly invested in the riding they seek to represent. In an era of increasing political fragmentation, a stricter requirement could lead to more focused, credible campaigns and a stronger democratic process. If candidates can meet this 500-signature threshold, they should be considered viable and not excluded from debates based on arbitrary or restrictive criteria.
While setting participation criteria for debates is necessary to maintain structure under the current candidate requirements, fairness must also be prioritized. Arbitrary exclusions, especially of local candidates, risk undermining voter confidence and limiting political discourse. A higher nomination threshold could help distinguish serious candidates while ensuring all viable voices are heard. In the meantime, if debate organizers continue to set restrictions, transparency is essential — the public should be informed in advance, with clear explanations through media releases, social media, and at the event itself. True democracy thrives on informed debate, and ensuring fair access is a key part of that process.
