This year’s debate will include a new format, with six-minute one-on-one debates, followed by a 12-minute round for all four leaders.

There’s been much ado over the decision to exclude Elizabeth May from the debate. Debate reform has since taken over our country’s editorial pages. The inconsistency of including May in 2008 but shutting her out this time has angered people even beyond the Greens’ voter base. There just doesn’t seem to be much rhyme or reason to how the Canadian debates are structured or who participates. But there has been some serious study of the debates, and some recommendations worth reading.

During her time at as a research assistant at Queen’s University’s Centre for the Study of Democracy, Michelle Rogers authored a 60-page report on the Canadian federal election debates.

It’s well worth a read. The study, also embedded below, examines the history of TV debates, compares policies worldwide and tackles the tough questions of ensuring debates that are both democratic and realistic. It details the Lortie Commission (an ill-fated attempt to solve these question 20 years ago) and dives into questions like if the Bloc should be included in English-language debates.

Rogers comes up with some interesting recommendations, though you may not like them all. A sampling:

• Televised leaders debates should be entrenched in both the Canada Elections Act and Broadcasting Act.
• Federal party funding for election campaigns should be contingent upon full participation in leaders debates.
• Party inclusion criteria should be three of these four: 5 percent support in national polls; a sitting MP; a full roster of candidates across the nation; and federal funding.
• A series of debates should take place on national and regional themes, broadcast on local channels.
• There should be two debates in the final weeks of the campaign: one with all qualifying party leaders, the other featuring the Prime Minister and the party leader from the highest polling opposition party.
• The use of social networking platforms should be exploited to broaden the reach and appeal of election debates.

Whether you agree with her recommendations or not, Roger’s report makes for an interesting read and may help you reach an informed opinion on what’s become a key part of our elections.

The simple answer is yes, if only because no government is likely to hike the minimum wage by $2 or $3 for fear of raising the cost of doing business too quickly and sending jobs to cheaper regions. So, if it weren’t for 20-cent or 30-cent increases, there would be no increases whatsoever.

But you raise an interesting point about whether those small increases get eaten up by higher-priced goods and an increased cost of living. It is clear that the price of some goods do rise after the minimum wage is increased. When Ontario’s rate was raised in February—to $7.15 from $6.85, the first hike in almost nine years—it was hard not to notice the price of a cup of coffee breaking the $1 mark and fast-food combos ringing in at about $7.

But Norman Cameron, an economics professor at the University of Manitoba, cautions against assuming those increases are across the board. “This only affects parts of the economy that employ minimum-wage workers, who are 10 percent of the labour force at most,” he says. “It’s not going to affect the health, education, manufacturing, transport or wholesale sectors.”

So, while the canny consumer will notice price jumps at service sector businesses—such as coffee shops, department stores and fast-food restaurants—those increases won’t have a dramatic effect on the cost of living as a whole. At most, it might translate into an increase of one-half of one per cent, Cameron says. And because increases to the minimum wage usually “trickle up” as employers try to keep their pay rates proportional, other low-income workers often aren’t burdened by an increased cost of living.

It also isn’t a given that businesses will automatically push their higher labour costs on to consumers, especially in the highly competitive service sector, says Charles Beach, an economics professor at Queen’s University and editor of Canadian Public Policy. “It depends partly on the degree of competition,” he says. “If you’re close to going out of business, then you really can’t push your prices much higher.” As well, he says most businesses only pass on about two-thirds of their labour costs to consumers.

So, small increases in the minimum wage are not entirely eaten up by an increased cost of living, giving low-wage earners more spending power. But not much more, says Todd Scarth, director of the Manitoba office of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. “The big problem is that [most] provinces have allowed the purchasing power of the minimum wage to be eroded significantly by inflation,” he says.

Given that the cost of living increases about two percent a year, in the case of Ontario, the recent minimum wage increase of 30 cents an hour is barely a four-percent hike and doesn’t even come close to the 18-percent increase required just to keep pace with inflation. “The answer is continued, sustained and, for the benefit of both workers and [businesses], predictable increases that ultimately add up to enough to make a difference,” says Scarth.

But that’s a hard sell to provincial governments. While Ontario, for example, has trumpeted its new plan to aid the working poor by making annual increases to the minimum wage until it reaches $8 an hour in 2007, that will still fall about 22 cents short of what’s required just to keep pace with inflation.

Have a question you want answered? Email news@thismagazine.ca.

This Magazine welcomes Bruce Gillespie, who takes over our This & That section with this issue. He is a freelance writer and editor whose work has appeared in Saturday Night, Quill & Quire, the National Post and Bankrate Canada. He lives in Simcoe, Ontario.