The lacklustre shemozzle that was last week’s leadership debate was not so much the fault of its organizers as it was a reflection of a pointless election.
We still haven’t heard anything resembling a good explanation for why the election was called in the first place. At its core, there is no burning issue challenging our values or deeply-held convictions, like free trade or a corruption scandal. Just a petulant prime minister unhappy with the hand he was dealt just two years ago.
In the absence of new issues, candidates are left to rehash a bunch of old ones, trying desperately to make a big deal out of the often very small differences between their positions.
Even in debating the assorted crises of our time – the pandemic, global warming, Indigenous-settler relations and Afghanistan, to name a few – it was really just a lot of same old same old.
Against this sad backdrop, it was only the Green Party’s Annamie Paul who stood out as an independent thinker with a fresh perspective. Anyone worried about that can rest assured that our first-past-the-post system will ensure her party doesn’t win any more than a few seats, at best.
Altogether, it was a rather civil affair. No knock-out punches landed of the ‘you had an option, sir’ variety, no hurling of insults, or gravel, for that matter.
The only point where things got a bit touchy was early on when debate moderator Shachi Kurl dared to ask BQ leader Yves-François Blanchet about discrimination against linguistic and religious minorities in Quebec, referring to Bills 96 and 21.
“These laws are not about discrimination,” he replied. “They are about the values of Quebec.”
Blanchet described how passing such laws is the prerogative of a nation in defending its language and culture. He reminded us that Quebec’s unilateral declaration of nationhood was supported by an almost unanimous vote in the House of Commons in June. Then, looking down the row of debaters to his left, he said he didn’t think any of them would disagree.
And he was right. None of them had anything to say about it. Take that to the ballot box.
But maybe Blanchet is giving us a clue as to how we anglos might deal with this situation. Perhaps we simply need to declare ourselves to be a nation, and then, like Quebec, do whatever we want to defend our right to exist.
And if it works for us, maybe the Uyghurs and Rohingya would like to give it a whirl.
But the challenge immediately before us is to go out and vote, and vote we must. However dissatisfied we are with the electoral system, the parties or the candidates themselves, we need to show up at the polls on Monday, if only to demonstrate that we cherish our democracy and the right we have to choose who governs us.
The challenge immediately before us is to choose a new Member of Parliament for Pontiac. The good news is that there is an impressive field of candidates to choose from, if the four main contenders who participated in the CHIP-FM debate a few weeks ago are any indication.
In addition to our weekly publication of their answers to your questions, The Equity posted short video interviews with each of them on our website in the hopes of conveying some sense of who they are as people. As you will see, they all seem to be thoughtful, well-informed people, articulate in both official languages, with a reasonable grasp of the issues.
We congratulate all the candidates for their willingness to stand up for their beliefs and offer their service to the country. The onus is now on us, the voters, to make something of the opportunity they present.
Charles Dickson
