Canadian election: The Great Non-Debate - Part 2

We begin our commentary on last night's English-language Leaders' Debate with this quote from the Globe and Mail's TV critic, John Doyle. "What happened across multiple Canadian TV channels was the worst of the worst, an example of utter failure in Canadian television, and a disgraceful insult to the intelligence of viewers and voters. That was not a debate, it was a farce. The fact that the political leaders even agreed to participate in the format is an indictment of their collective intelligence."

Indeed. Maxime Bernier, leader of the People’s Party of Canada, should consider himself fortunate that he didn't meet the Leaders' Debates Commission's blatantly rigged criteria for participating. What was supposed to be a debate between the leaders of Canada's "main" political parties -- including the Greens, currently polling at about 3% -- turned into a shouting match between the leaders and a roster of female (and feminist) "journalists" determined to prove that they could be even tougher and nastier than any man.

To quote Mr Doyle again, "Moderator Shachi Kurl took the view that her job was to stop the leaders from talking." The result was something like a Canadian version of The View, or maybe Family Feud, since all of the leaders were part of the great liberal extended family. That includes Erin O'Toole (the leftmost one in the picture), who is only pretending to be a conservative.

Apparently (says Mr Doyle) the format was to sometimes allow a leader to answer a direct question but also allow hectoring interruptions from another speaker and, at that point, the original speaker was told to shut up. Mr Doyle says the only winner was the moderator's attitude.  

It's hard to pick any highlights from the debate that never was, because the constant interruptions and arguments from the Ladeez destroyed what hockey commentators call "the flow of the game". As the topics moved through climate change, the inevitable and unending indigenous reconciliation, affordability and the kung flu pandemic, all five leaders defended their records and plans. But M Trudeau, who is seeking a third term as prime minister, faced the harshest scrutiny. 

He suffered most from the strange format -- individual questions, than A vs B, then C vs D vs Ed, with which one is which changing every round -- left Mr Socks the target of the other four, with the ability to answer directly only part of the time. He tried to make up for that by interrupting anyway, even if he wasn't in the group of two or three who were supposed to be talking.

Thus, although as on the previous night he wound up with the most air time, Mr McBlackface once again declined to directly answer why he called an election amid the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, telling voters they must "make a choice" about which leader's plan is best for the future. 

He was also forced to defend his record on sexual misconduct in the military, with Ms Kurly asking why he hadn't done anything about the "misogynist culture" that caused such incidents. Green leader Annamie Paul (who checks three boxes on the "victims" list) contended that M Trudeau is "not a real feminist", two high profile female ministers who left his cabinet. M Trudeau told Ms Pall that he "won't take any lessons on caucus management from you."

After Mr O'Tool accused the Liberal leader of failing to secure the release of "the two Michaels" who have been languishing in Chinese prisons for over 1000 days, Mr Socks said taking a more aggressive approach will not yield results. He delivered his best zinger of the evening, "You do not simply lob tomatoes across the Pacific." 

As the topic moved to climate change, the leaders contended that their various plans to lower greenhouse gas emissions by various percentages were the right ones for Canada's future. None of them denied the premise of the topic -- that there is some kind of climate "crisis" -- or asked whether any human action can change the course of nature. Ms Paul and Mr Singh blamed M Trudeau for the forest fires in British Columbia, without explaining how their nebulous plans would prevent further fires, floods or other acts of God (or nature).

Asked by an indigenous voter why he should trust any of the leaders after "150-plus years of lies and abuse of my people," Mr McBlackface said his government has made progress, but the other leaders quickly pounced on his admission (on this and other issues) that there's "still a lot to be done."

That led  the pretend-conservative leader to accuse the (please God) soon-to-be-former prime minister of pretending to prioritize issues instead of following up with action. "He announces things, and never delivers," said Mr O'Tool. "A prime minister has to deliver on the words."

Indeed. It's not likely that Mr O'Tool, if he should prevail on September 20th, will be any better at delivering on his promises than was Mr Socks, but let's face it, he's the only one with a real chance of becoming the next Prime Minister of Canuckistan. 

Dear Canadian friends! If you live in a riding where the Conservative candidate is in a close race, hold your nose and vote for him/her. If you're in a Québec riding where the Cons have little chance, vote for the PPC if they have a decent chance of winning, otherwise for the Bloc. In all other circumstances, cast your ballot for the only party that offers a real conservative alternative -- Maxime Bernier's People's Party of Canada.