Should Elizabeth May be in the televised leaders' debate?

Should Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party, be allowed to debate with the other party leaders in the televised debates next week? The simple answer is YES. My reasoning for this is simple. The broadcast consortium running the debate say that since the Green Party doesn't have a seat in Parliament, the leader isn't allowed in. It has been argued that the reason they don't have a seat is because of the "first past the post" electoral system used in Canada. If seats were allocated by the popular vote, that the Green Party would most definitely have some sitting MP's. However, I think that the argument that the number of votes they received in last election qualifies the Green Party to receive the full per vote subsidy is a good reason, and that they deserve to be heard as a legitimate voice in political discussions in Canada, since they receive significant public funding. But, to make sure we don't have too many voices, regardless of whether a party receives any per vote subsidy, in the interest of having a civilized debate, it should be limited to party leaders that earned at least 5% of the popular vote across Canada (the Green Party had 6.8%). This ensures a plurality of voices to be heard without muddling the discussion too much. I also think that the debate format used in 2008 (when Ms. May was included) was not a very good one. This needs to be revised. One suggestion I have is to dedicate a significant block of time for a debate strictly between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition has an official status in the Canadian Parliamentary system and therefore should have special status in a debate so that the Opposition Leader has the opportunity to debate issues directly with the Prime Minister without the other leaders interjecting and creating a lot of noise. Typically, it's the parties of the Government or the Official Opposition that are voted into the next government and voters need to see how the leaders of each of the parties stack up. Finally, it has been suggested that decisions regarding the debates be taken away from the broadcasters and an independent body be used to manage the debates (as it is in the United States). I applaud this. Broadcasters are too close to this issue. They need to be at arms length. The independent body could negotiate terms with the broadcasters and the broadcasters would have to televise the debates as part of their licence requirements. Someone suggested that the people running the Munk debates could take this on, and unless someone has a better idea, this appears to be a sound idea. Canadian voters need a plurality viewpoints so that they can decide who to entrust their democracy to!