“We make a lot of television in Canada. Some of it is brilliant and some of it is mediocre. The worst of it is truly, truly awful. This botched election debate is down at the bottom of the list; an indictment of everyone involved from the host to every politician who attempted to speak during the shambles.” (John Doyle – Globe and Mail)
By Ray Rivers
September 15th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
The Debates in French were better. In fact they couldn’t have been worse than that horror show last Thursday. What went wrong? We could start by the debaters. There were too many.
Green Party leader Annamie Paul
Did we really need to see the Green Party leader at the debates when she has zero chance of ever leading a government, let alone winning more than Elizabeth May’s seat again. The party is polling at about 3% and imploding into a legal fight over the choice of its leader. Her voice is important, like everyone else. But in a league of potential PMs she is out of her league.
The Bloc leader’s stated goal is to tear Canada apart. And his party’s popular support is currently sitting at around the 6% mark, given that he is a Quebec only politician. While Annamie Paul may have a delusional ambition of becoming Canada’s next PM, Yves-François Blanchet takes pride in saying he never wants to be PM. So why was he invited?
Maxime Bernier on his way to being sworn in as Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Harper government – he is now the leader of the People’s Party of Canada.
Meanwhile People’s Party (PPC) was not invited, even though his party is now polling in fourth place, ahead of the Bloc Quebecois and almost double that of the Greens. Of course there are no PPC MP’s in the House and Bernier would probably need to get vaccinated to appear with the others, something anathema to his party’s platform. Still, he should not be dismissed if the Greens are invited. After all, the Reform party before him came from relative obscurity to opposition in a single election.
Moderating a leaders’ debate takes skill and patience and none of that was present in the English debate unlike the other two held in the French language. It was pathetically unprofessional, on the one hand encouraging the debaters to go at it, then cutting them off before they could finish their sentences – allowing anyone interrupting them to take over the floor. And as most have observed the moderator tended to favour the other parties over the Liberals, the Bloc being the sole exception.
Jagmeet Singh leader of the New Democrats
The most cringeworthy moments were when Jagmeet Singh opened his mouth. Singh’s election platform is best described as nothing more than broad generalized notions and aspirations dotted with sob stories of all the poor people he met on the street. As in that old song – anything the Libs are doing he can do better – he can do anything better than them.
He is promising to pay for his promises by taxing Jeff Bezos and other billionaires, regardless that Bezos is not even Canadian. He is also looking to eliminate subsidies to the fossil fuel sector estimated at $18B, something Trudeau had promised to do back in 2015. Though that would be the proverbial drop in the bucket given the hundreds of billions he includes In his spending plan.
Singh, comes from a well-to-do family which sent him off for private schooling in the USA and then paid for his law schooling. Yet he is constantly comparing his life to that of poorer Canadians and indigenous folks. Justin Trudeau may have been a drama teacher but he could learn a lot about acting from Singh.
You can either attract first time voters or steal those from other parties to build up an electoral base. Mr. Singh has targeted Trudeau Liberals and is appealing to them with often inaccurate and half truth drive-by attacks on the Liberal leader. He recently accused the Liberals of talking about a national child care program for 30 years but failing to deliver, for example. Yet he conveniently forgot that Paul Martin’s pan-national program was killed by Jack Layton’s motion of non-confidence only 15 years ago.
Erin O’Toole leader of the Conservative Party of Canada and Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons
Erin O’Toole has a tough road ahead of him given the party he leads, though he is still polling well. His dramatic shift to a more central position on key issues will encourage voters, fed up with Mr. Trudeau, to vote for him. But he is also losing the hard right faction of his party to Mr. Bernier, who is gradually improving in the polls. Quebec premier’s endorsement of O’Toole may only strengthen that erosion, though Quebec is still a wild card.
And O’Toole like the other leaders and the media keeps asking why we are having this election. And Mr. Trudeau has not really given a satisfactory response to that question. But most folks suspect it was political opportunism to call an election while his popular support was high with the Tories still in the formative stage of redefining themselves.
One benefit of this election, however, is that Canadians are having a healthy debate about a number of issues, primarily climate change. If the Tories don’t win the most seats and claim the right to govern, which they might still do, they will have been given direction on what they need to do fashion policies for the next election.
The Liberals, whether they form the next government or not should have learned a couple of lessons. First they should not call an election, even if in minority, unless they are forced to by the opposition. Second they need to redouble their efforts at phasing out Canada’s fossil fuel sector, starting with ending their subsidization.
Third, when the Liberals do next call an election they need to be better organized and have a good reason for that call. And they actually have a pretty good record of accomplishments, which most of us seem to have overlooked:
1. The problem-free legalization of cannabis and decriminalization of all the people once involved;
2. Over-achievement of the 20% goal of poverty reduction;
3. The first significant federal action on reducing our carbon footprint, including a carbon tax, a cessation of new pipelines and the prohibited sale of new gas vehicles 2035; and
4. Commencing the long road towards indigenous reconciliation.
Justin Trudeau in the political race of his life – if he wins just a minority it might be the end of a political career.
But as Mr. Trudeau ponders his future in the last days before an election which still might see him out of power, he needs to reflect why he gave up on his promise of electoral reform. Over half of all Canadians support parties which promote progressive social and economic policies.
Yet our first-past-the-post system might well allow the Tories to sneak up the middle and win seats with only 30% of voter support while the lefties argue among themselves about who can target even higher emission reductions.
Implementing electoral reform would have been and still might be Trudeau’s greatest accomplishment.
Ray Rivers, a Gazette Contributing Editor, writes regularly applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was once a candidate for provincial office in Burlington. He was the founder of the Burlington citizen committee on sustainability at a time when climate warming was a hotly debated subject. Ray has a post graduate degree in economics that he earned at the University of Ottawa. Tweet @rayzrivers
Background links:
Liberal Platform – Singh’s Lifestyle –
I think you were right the first time. Mr. Ettlewood was, in my view, discrediting Ms Hersh’s position. He did not impugn her character in any way.
If one posts a position here one must expect to be challenged on it by way of counter arguments and through on point questions put to one. Questions which should not be ignored.
Taxing the rich Canadians….. But nobody mentions taxing their trust funds where the money is hidden and control is transferred without any taxes. Why? Do they themselves make use of such trust funds? Wealth tax, why not on the value inside trust funds. That is if you truly want to go after the richest Canadians.
The rich are usually smart, industrious and/ or just lucky, for which there is no crime. In my opinion, democratic governments should focus on wealth creation, rather than wealth re-distribution, as the socialists & communists do.
You’re right Ray in thinking that many of us have overlooked Trudeau’s “pretty good record of accomplishments”. Legalizing pot, making an unsubstantiated poverty reduction claim, good intentions on climate change (no results) and commencing the long road towards reconciliation with our Indigenous people (John MacDonald said that). Whoa! Pretty good? And while we’re on the subject, our own Karina Gould did nothing on electoral reform as Minister of Democratic Institutions. Ultimately, we get the government we deserve.
I missed the debate. There was a really good episode of Real Housewives of Beverly Hills playing in that time slot.
Credit where credit is due good opinion piece
“He is promising to pay for his promises by taxing Jeff Bezos and other billionaires, regardless that Bezos is not even Canadian. He is also looking to eliminate subsidies to the fossil fuel sector estimated at $18B, something Trudeau had promised to do back in 2015.”
Something Trudeau never did, just another Lieberal promise broken. What Jagmeet should have said was he would do what Trudeau has failed to do.
“Singh, comes from a well-to-do family which sent him off for private schooling in the USA and then paid for his law schooling. Yet he is constantly comparing his life to that of poorer Canadians and indigenous folks. Justin Trudeau may have been a drama teacher but he could learn a lot about acting from Singh.”
Are you inferring here that Trudeau didn’t grow up entitled?
“3. The first significant federal action on reducing our carbon footprint, including a carbon tax, a cessation of new pipelines and the prohibited sale of new gas vehicles 2035”
Green house gasses have increased under this governments term
FROM WIKIPEDIA – JAGMEET SINGH “Early life and education (1979–2006)
Singh was born on January 2, 1979, in Scarborough, Ontario, to Harmeet Kaur and Jagtaran Singh.[20] His mother is from Ghudani Khurd, Punjab, while his father is from Thikriwala, Punjab.[21] His great-grandfather was Sewa Singh Thikriwala, a political activist who campaigned for the cause of Indian independence.[22] Another of Jagmeet’s great-grandfathers is Hira Singh, who served in World War I and World War II in the Sikh Regiment of the British Indian Army.[23] After a year as a toddler living with his grandparents in India, Singh spent his early childhood in St. John’s and Grand Falls-Windsor, both in Newfoundland and Labrador, before relocating with his family to Windsor, Ontario.[24][25] Singh has publicly discussed suffering sexual abuse as a child, as well as having a father who was alcoholic and abusive.[26]
From grades 6 to 12, Singh attended Detroit Country Day School in Beverly Hills, Michigan.[27] He went on to obtain a Bachelor of Science in biology from the University of Western Ontario in 2001 and a Bachelor of Laws from York University’s Osgoode Hall Law School in 2005. He was called to the bar of Ontario in 2006.[28]”
I would not call this a privileged upbringing.
Justin Trudeau is the one with the privileged upbringing. His work history is that of a bouncer, a part-time drama teacher, and because his last name is TRUDEAU he is now the Prime Minister of Canada, who called an election during a pandemic ( which previously indicated he would never do). Guess he didn’t take full advantage of his privileged upbringing.
I agree that the english debate was a horror, but would prefer that if you are going after all the leaders running in this election that it be done without any form of bias.
LOL – as if you are without bias Penny. With all due respect, from what I’ve observed if one cuts you, you bleed blue. I’m sure you’re aware that most Wikipedia politician bios are written by the politicians themselves. And as a reliable source of information, Wikipedia is to credible research what Webster’s Dictionary is to formal English. I am not a supporter of Trudeau or O’Toole for that matter but at least I try to stay above the bar of mindless partisanship. You might try it – it’s refreshing. BTW, you might want to ask Mr. Singh what the particular folds of his turban signify?
Discrediting Penny serves who?
Knight in shining Armour ! Hurrah for chivalry !
And in answer to your question, it serves the readers.
Let me re-phrase. Attacking one’s character is not helpful or constructive in debating an issue with that individual. Most of the Gazette’s readers will understand.
This is so well articulated…the debate was a joke , 4 vultures descending upon a PM who was never “allowed” to complete a sentence. The host was no better than a mother scolding her 6 year old for eating too many cookies…she was awful, disrespectful and authoritative especially evident when she was interactiing with the PM.