No debating the disappointment from this political showdown

Opinion

A last-ditch hope to dredge up some genuine insight from the Thursday-night, English-language leaders’ debate died on an altar built by a herd of far-right agents provocateurs masquerading as journalists.

The question-and-answer session following the televised debate is supposed to be an important opportunity for legitimate journalists, regardless of their points of view, to dig deeper into what the leaders said and meant to say. Unfortunately, representatives of far-right media outlets — the names of which will not be repeated here — got into a donnybrook with debate organizers that was so vociferous, the leaders decided to take a pass.

The right-wing instigators, who largely use talking points from the Conservative election platform to construct their questions, had stacked line-ups of journalists waiting to ask questions at Wednesday night’s French-language debate. On Thursday, organizers clearly tried to stop the right-wingers from doing the same, prompting an angry confrontation.

The end result is that there was no chance to ask Liberal Leader Mark Carney how he felt after being gang-tackled during the debate. No comment from Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre about why he wasn’t able to land a knock-out punch and reverse his party’s woeful fortunes.

There was no guarantee that legitimate journalists could have elicited responses from the leaders that would have given voters a genuine brush with enlightenment. But putting the leaders nose-to-nose with veteran political journalists would have given us a fighting chance.

It should be noted that this was a debate that began with one hand tied behind its collective back. Okay, two hands if we’re being totally accurate.

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh, whose party is facing a very real possibility of total annihilation, and Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-Francois Blanchet, who is only worried about winning seats in Quebec, were full participants with only partial impact on the evening’s events.

This was always destined to be a showdown between Poilievre and Carney.

Lamentably, when it was all said and done, there were no “showdown-worthy” moments. There were, however, moments of subtle contrast that, more fully explored in post-debate questions, might have helped inform voters.

On housing, for example, Poilievre and the Tories are all in a pledge to remove the GST from newly built homes while demanding lower development fees and quicker permit approvals from municipalities.

The Liberals, on the other hand, more or less match the pledge on removing the GST from some new homes but then diverge from the Tories by creating a new federal housing agency that will develop affordable housing, either on its own or in partnership with builders.

This is a significant difference in philosophy: one party that wants to help the private sector to build more homes, in the hope that increased supply brings down prices; and another that wants to directly influence the price of housing by getting directly involved in building in a bid to control rent and price levels.

It would have been valuable to hear the leaders answer specific questions on these contrasting positions in post-debate scrums. Unfortunately, activists engaged in journalist cosplay doomed those hopes.

There is also a lot of wasted time on essentially stupid debates.

Poilievre has drawn a lot of attention for his pledge to use the notwithstanding clause to override the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and allow courts to stack life sentences for multiple murderers. This is a pledge to bring back a provision introduced when Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper was in power, and Poilievre served in cabinet.

The Supreme Court struck down consecutive life sentences because it results in “a sentence so absurd that it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.” More importantly, the Tory pledge ignores the fact that multiple or serial killers are, in general, kept in prison for their entire natural lives.

The notable exception was Karla Homolka, who participated in the torture and murder of two Ontario school girls. Homolka struck a deal for a reduced sentence in exchange for testifying against her lover, Paul Bernardo. It was only after Bernardo was convicted that a video surfaced showing that Homolka had been more of an active participant in the murders.

It’s not surprising that Poilievre used the debate to repeatedly celebrate his intention to override the Charter to allow consecutive life sentences; this is a core tool the Tory leader has used to forge an impression that he would be tougher on criminals. What was more surprising was the poor job the other leaders did in debunking Poilievre’s idea.

Winnipeg Free Press | Newsletter

Dan Lett | Not for Attribution

Tuesdays

A weekly look at politics close to home and around the world.

Sign up for Dan Lett | Not for Attribution

Sign Up

I agree to the Terms and Conditions, Cookie and Privacy Policies, and CASL agreement.

Carney and Singh expressed some concern that a prime minister who uses the notwithstanding clause, something that’s never been done before, would make it easier for the federal and provincial governments to start regularly overriding the Charter.

But none of them dared to point out that Poilievre’s idea is simply disingenuous, given that the kinds of criminals he’s targeting are already subject to rules that imprison them for their natural lives. Clearly, on this volatile issue, there was no political reward for taking the risk of offering voters a dose of reality.

Put it all together, and what are we left with from debate week?

Another election. Another televised debate. Another lost opportunity to inform the electorate.

dan.lett@freepress.mb.ca

Dan Lett
Columnist

Dan Lett is a columnist for the Free Press, providing opinion and commentary on politics in Winnipeg and beyond. Born and raised in Toronto, Dan joined the Free Press in 1986.  Read more about Dan.

Dan’s columns are built on facts and reactions, but offer his personal views through arguments and analysis. The Free Press’ editing team reviews Dan’s columns before they are posted online or published in print — part of the our tradition, since 1872, of producing reliable independent journalism. Read more about Free Press’s history and mandate, and learn how our newsroom operates.