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. 

Canadian election: Rigged Leaders' Debates over, now what? - Part 1

Subhead seen on the CBC News website report on Wednesday night's "Débat des Chefs": "The five main party leaders will meet again on Thursday for the English debate." Did you catch that? "five main party leaders"! Ha ha! It is to laugh! The Liberal (and liberal) bias of the so-called "non-partisan" Leaders' Debate Commission was on full display, along with blatant rigging to silence any conservative voices, as Walt's question of August 28th was answered in the negative. 

In spite of polling ahead of both the Bloc Québécois and the ultrawoke Green Party, People's Party of Canada leader Maxime Bernier -- the man without the mask -- was excluded. Thus the "debates" amounted to nothing more than a liberal love-in, as the four leaders who aren't Just In Trudeau tripped all over themselves to say that they agreed with his "progressive" policies -- including "vaccine mandates" and carbon taxes -- the only issue being who should be Prime Minister come September 21st. 

What did voters want to hear about? A poll conducted exclusively for True North revealed that the two most important issues for hapless Canucks were getting through the kung flu pandemic (36%) and climate change (30%). High-profile issues like foreign affairs and terrorism (read: China and Afghanistan) and "indigenous reconciliation" (read: hand out more money to the victims industry) were the least of respondents' concerns, at 2% and 7% respectively.

So which issues did the alleged journalists and pundits asking the questions focus on? You guessed it. Reconciliation got about 18% of the airtime on Thursday night, and the proceedings both nights started with the now obligatory "land acknowledgment ceremony" in which the emcee said how grateful everyone was that the People Formerly Known As Indians were allowing the debates to be held on land that had been stolen from them.

The official topics for Wednesday night's French-language debate were climate change, the cost of living, "cultural identity" (which skirted the reconciliation non-issue), the pandemic and mandatory vaccines, justice and foreign policy. All five of the participants were pretty much in agreement on those things, so the four who aim to replace Blackie McBlackface threw in "trust and integrity", and whether this election is even necessary. 

In his first exchange with M Trudeau, Erin O'Tool, leader of the Mildly Conservative Party, asked, "Why did you call an election in the middle of a pandemic?... This isn't the time to be dividing people." Jugmeat Singh, leader of the Few Democrats chimed in, "The only reason to call an election is a selfish one. To gain more power. That was not the right thing to do." 

Mr Socks' lame response was that Canadians deserve a say on how the country gets out of the pandemic. Mr Singh countered that there was no real choice, since the two main parties -- and there are only those two -- were like Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber. (He didn't use that phrase. It's mine!)

With no real disagreements on the issues, what amounted to a liberal love-in droned on for two house, the only sparks coming when M Trudeau engaged his drama queen gear. When Yves-François Blanchet (leader of the Bloc Québécois) said he was the only one standing up for the rights of Québec and Québécois, M Trudeau got all huffy and said he was just as much a Québecker as M Blanchet. In fact thatès not true, as Just In's mother, née Margaret Sinclair, was from the western province of Saskatchewan, and never bothered to learn French or otherwise become part of the "Québec nation".

That reminds me of a story I heard recently about the wife of Emperor Trudeau I. She was always something of an airhead, an earlier version of Princess Di, who married a much older man for reasons known only to her. She may also have had a problem with, errr, substance abuse. (It was all the rage in the disco era.) Anyhoo, she took to hanging out with the celebs at New York's Studio 54, and was photographed "going commando", showing a type of Canadian beaver not seen on the nickel. When asked to comment, Pierre (le père de Just In) allegedly said, "I hope Teddy Kennedy drives her home!" 

But I digress. [Indeed. Can you just wrap up Wednesday night and we'll leave Thursday for the next post? Ed.] OK! Election debates always come with high expectations, to which they rarely live up. Wednesday night's debate was no exception. It did, however, signal that the languid pace of this summer campaign is over now. 

 The leaders' messaging, their efforts to stand apart from their opponents, the occasional lame barbs they traded back and forth, all amounted to an acknowledgement by the party leaders that the public opinion polls they profess to ignore are right. This race is close. A majority government appears out of reach for the two frontrunners. That means it's time for strategic voting.

Walt's advice for conservative Canucks, and everyone else who's sick of Just In Trudeau and all his pomps and wokeness: 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. The PPC is sitting at around 8%, nation-wide, in the latest polls. It would be wonderful, and good for Canada, to see them win not just Mad Max's seat (Beauce) but one or two besides.

Note from Ed.: Once Walt gets the bit between it's teeth, it's hard to stop him. Part 2 of his report on the Leaders' Debates follows momentarily.