As soon as participation is regulated, Charter arguments can arise, saying that the rules are inadequate, either in terms of having the right to vote and being eligible to vote, or in terms of freedom of expression, whatever. I believe that those discussions should be held outside the election campaign. In my opinion, priority number one is that the criteria should be written into the law. Any challenge would be about the law itself, not about the application of the law by a commission or a commissioner in the middle of an election campaign. That is the main thing.
As for the criteria that should be chosen, you have heard other witnesses propose various criteria. For me, it's a tricky question. I understand that we cannot have a leaders' debate with 22 leaders at the same time. On the other hand, it is not up to me to come up with rules that would exclude any of them. My role is to look after all political parties, not to propose a framework for which parties should take part in the debates.
You have heard various proposals from the witnesses. What emerges from the proposals is the possibility of creating a flexible system that is open to emerging parties, while recognizing the need for an informative debate to take place between a limited number of participants.
Clearly, there are other possibilities, like alternative debates and so on. Once again, it is not my role to propose a framework for participation.