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.