Federal Leader’s Debate, 2025

 

(At least we hope there isn’t another election in 2025)

I watched the leader’s debate in English on Thursday evening, as I’m sure many of you did.  I came away with some impressions that I would like to share with you.  I’ll do them by party from right to left on the platform.

Bloc Quebecois

Mr. Blanchette, it turns out, is a one trick pony, “Quebec, Quebec, Quebec”.  His constant reference to “Quebec and Canada” became annoying but it did show his only message. To paraphrase – I’m only interested in getting things for Quebec. That was about all he contributed.  He was also quick to butt into other speakers’ discussions and demand a response for Quebec. It is obvious that he wants to win a preponderance of Quebec seats.

It is interesting that the Bloc, who only field 78 candidates is included in the debate, whereas the Green Party, which is fielding 200, is excluded. It shows you that it would be very hard to start a new political party in Canada. (Note that the Peoples’ Party was also not included)

NDP

Mr. Singh wants, so badly, to be the fly in the ointment; to have a minority government that will need an agreement with him to stay in power.  He obviously enjoyed when he had the agreement with Justin Trudeau’s Liberals. He constantly referred to the various social programs that he claimed he got through because of it.  The fact that, during that arrangement, he didn’t need to pay for the programs did not arise. He was, by far, the most prolific interrupter throughout the evening.  He was mostly trying to overwhelm Mr. Carney.

Liberal

Mr. Carney is the shortest leader in height which makes him look vulnerable. But he does not act vulnerable. He tried hard to explain his platform, although some of the explanations were a bit hard to fathom. He did not respond to questions, or accusations, about his previous employment nor his net worth and this will be seen as a fault, but his net worth is, in my opinion, nobody’s business. He was “accused” of having more discussion time than the others, but a lot of that time was taken up by other leaders, most notably Mr. Singh, interjecting and trying to talk over him which made it very difficult to get his message across. Nonetheless, I was impressed by his ability to keep his cool and keep trying without retort or remark.

Conservative

Has anyone else noted that Mr. Poilievre seems to have a perpetual sneer. Nobody challenged him on his platform (or lack of it). He certainly does not seem to have a sound climate plan, except to ship the problem overseas. He wants to increase oil and gas exploitation but ship it to foreign countries (China and India were mentioned) so it would not count against Canada’s contribution to GHG.  He was not often challenged on any of his statements, but he too often tried to shout down Mr. Carney. His big push was on crime where it seems quite prepared to use the Charter’s not withstanding clause to impose harsher and harsher sentences.  I have always been against the use of that part of the Charter for any reason and I find it very dangerous in the hands of the federal government. He even hints that he wants to do away with bail, at least for some accused. This platform on crime seems to be based on a misinformed idea of the state of crime in Canada.  (Saturday’s Globe and Mail has an editorial about the real state of affairs in this regard.) He tried to defend his reasons for not getting a security clearance, perhaps not realizing that even without it, if he sees or discloses classified information, he is still subject to the Official Secrets Act. He reserved his biggest blasts against the idea of a fourth Liberal term in office. It was almost like another one of his three-word slogans, “No fourth term”.

Summary

The debate was interesting, but I’m not sure that it would change very many minds. Mr. Poilievre did not land the killer punch he no doubt hoped to. Despite the interruptions, Mr. Carney did not come across as weak nor a copy of Justin Trudeau. He is his own man and has his own ideas. Mr. Singh did not endear himself nor did he come up with anything new that might entice some people to change their votes to him. Fortunately, most of us do not have an opportunity to vote for Mr. Blanchet. I’m not sure anybody outside Quebec would want to.

Elections are always important, and this one is probably a bit more so. I’m not sure that debates such as this are designed to explore new ideas or defend existing ones. To me, they are most valuable for showing the character of the contenders.  On that question, I think this debate was a success.

Wouldn’t it be exciting to see a leaders’ debate where at least half of the leaders were women.

Electioneering

 

Today (Tuesday, April 15^th) I attended an election event. It was a “coffee with candidates” in my riding of Peterborough – Kawarthas.  It went from 9 am to 10 pm today so there is no way of knowing how many people will show up during the entire day.  Each of the candidates was there and were allowed to make a short introduction speech.  I missed the first couple of speakers but got a chance speak to one of them later.

There were tables set up around the room, one for each candidate. I tried to get to speak to at least three of the candidates. But I never got a chance to talk to the NDP candidate because she never showed up anywhere near her table and I did not know what she looked like to see if she was roaming the room.

 I next succeeded in talking with the Conservative candidate.  She is the incumbent in this riding. But there was always a large number of people wanting her attention. I tried twice but did not get a chance to talk to her. If the number of people surrounding her are any indication, she will probably win her seat back. For the Conservative party, I wanted to find out if they would, in fact, use the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution to impose a law that has already been found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. If so, I think that it is the worst thing that could happen. Some of you may remember that I have written in previous blogs about my negative feelings about that section of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and how it has been misused by some provinces. In the hands of the federal government, it is downright dangerous.

I moved on to the Liberal candidate.  After a short wait, I was able to talk to her about my main interests in this election: national defence; and climate change. Unlike other candidates, she had briefing papers for a number of her party’s platforms.  I started by reading a couple of these and then was able to talk to the candidate about these two subjects. Most of the discussion was about national defence. Having spent quite a bit of my working career in defence procurement, both in my military and civilian careers, I have a pretty good idea how the procurement system works. I did not ask about what the party would do, that was explained in the paper, but how they were going to do it. I got some very positive answers on that.

What’s interesting about my presence at such an event is that it is the first time I have attended any such political event.

An interesting fact about this riding is that all the party candidates are women, all five of them.

Elections are a vital part of our democracy, and we should make every effort to vote in them. But remember what you are voting for, not against.

 

Gripes

 

Thinking

Do we think any more? More importantly, do we think critically anymore? Can we listen to other opinions and decide if they make sense? Higher learning is supposed to promote critical thinking and expose young people to alternate ideas and theories. And yet we see institutions that cancel or turn away speakers who may not adhere to the “staff answer”.  In doing so, they deny people of exercising their critical thinking about whether the speaker is telling the truth of if their truth aligns with the listener’s value and truths. It’s no wonder that people so readily accept the misinformation and distortions of self-proclaimed demigods such as Donald Trump, Elon Musk, Victor Orban and other such proclaimers. Most North American universities tend to be left leaning so right-wing speakers are turned away. We tend to be more sympathetic to the Jewish and Israeli cause, so we don’t want to hear from those who plead for Palestinians. The list goes on. When are we going to start thinking critically again?

Courage

We all see depictions of the physical courage shown by sports players, those who make extraordinary plays, or soldiers in war or western movies.  These men and women are extolled in every medium.  They are enshrined in Halls of Fame or with medals and honours.  But what about other types of courage.

In grades seven and eight I attended a brand-new school named after a British Field Marshall, Bernard Law Montgomery, he of World War Two El Alamein and Northwest Europe fame. Each year I was there, he would visit the school and give a talk to the students.  His message was about moral courage.  He told the story of the boy (himself?) at a boarding school who, despite the hazing of his classmates, would get down on his knees each night before bed and pray.  That was his example of moral courage.  And it stuck with me. I also remember my parents showing the same courage when they were the only two to stand up to oppose a church measure agreed to by all the rest of the congregation.

Today, I have to ask what has happened to moral courage. Why do we meekly go along with the so-called consensus even when we disagree with it. Why, for instance, are more people not speaking out against the outrageous pronouncement and decision coming out the US White House? The President seems, for example, to want to destroy the press if they question him. Where is the moral courage to decry lies and distortions coming from politicians in almost every democratic country?  On an individual basis why are people not willing to resist when some outspoken person shouts you down when they tell you that your ideas or political leanings are all wrong? Too many seem willing to just keep quiet to preserve ‘harmony’.  Can we not address these people with reasoned arguments about our leanings?  I seem to be a bit cowardly in this regard since I do my arguing in writing.

I am certainly not holding myself up as some paragon of moral courage, but I do see where this lack can lead us; unquestioned acceptance, lack of reasoned opposition, loss of freedom of speech or belief.

“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.”
  - Michael Crichton

 

“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
  - George Orwell

 

None of us are a paragon of virtue, but surely, we can have the moral courage to be the conveyers of truth.