2 weeks Ago By Special to National Post
The format for the English and French leaders’ debates — with the participants identically positioned like birds on a wire, addressing predictable questions but given only 35 seconds or less to respond, regardless of whether the question was about strawberries or trade relations with the United States — leaves much to be desired for both the leaders and the public. I know how frustrating this can be, having participated in such debates myself. How to reform such debates so that the leaders can express themselves more fully and so that viewers don’t abandon them 10 minute after they start is a subject for another day.
More immediately relevant are the following questions, with preambles to put them in context, that might have been asked of the leaders but were not — pointed questions that position participants like NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh and Bloc Leader Yves-François Blanchet as future members of the opposition, and that put the most pressing questions to Liberal Leader Mark Carney and Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre as the only real candidates for the office of prime minister. Moderator to Singh : It was you and your party that supported the Trudeau Liberals in Parliament long after they lost the support of Canadians — with the result that former NDP voters are asking, “Why should we vote for you if all you do is support the Liberals?” So in the next Parliament, will you ally yourself again with the Liberals or will you assure voters tonight that, if elected, you will not ally yourself with the Liberals, whether they are in government or Opposition? Moderator to Blanchet : Although you and your party are running for seats in the Parliament of Canada, you repeatedly say that your sole purpose is to protect and advance the interests of Quebec. So, two questions: If, over the next few years, another referendum on separation is held in Quebec, as promised by the Parti Québécois, will you and your colleagues support the secession of Quebec? And, if so, as long as you are a member of the Parliament of Canada, being paid by Canada and having taken the oath of allegiance required of Canadian MPs, will you tonight promise to abstain from voting on all bills and motions not pertaining to Quebec but relevant to the rest of Canada? Turning now to the only two leaders who may potentially become the prime minister after April 28, here are several questions prompted by three major forces impacting Canadians in the years ahead — the rise of populism, the rising influence of the Asia-Pacific region and the increased use of fear as a political motivator in election campaigns.
Moderator to Carney and Poilievre : All over the world, we are seeing the rising influence of bottom-up political energy from rank-and-file people who are tired of being dictated to by aristocratic elites in whom they have lost confidence. Could you therefore give us your opinion on populism? Do you regard it as a political energy to be denounced and resisted or a democratic force to be accepted and harnessed for constructive ends? Moderator to Carney and Poilievre : The Freedom Convoy of 2022, which protested against some of the authoritarian measures imposed by the Trudeau government in response to the COVID crisis, provided an imperfect but relevant example of populism at work in Canada. If either of you had been prime minister at the time, how would you have responded? Moderator to Carney and Poilievre : With respect to relations with foreign nations other than the United States, the politicians and media of Central and Atlantic Canada have a tendency to look back to Europe.
Mr. Carney, you made your first trip as prime minister, not to Australia or Japan, but to France and England, and have repeatedly referenced the European Union as Canada’s most promising economic ally. But the western half of this country looks west not east and sees the Asia-Pacific region as a major source of future trade as well as a source of danger rooted in the imperialistic ambitions of Communist China.
And so, a two-fold question: What foreign and trade policies would you advocate to strengthen Canada’s relations and trade with the nations of the Asia-Pacific region? And how would you protect Canada from the imperialism of Communist China — an imperialism that advances through partnerships between western companies like Brookfield and Chinese entities tied directly or indirectly to the Communist party, through loans to western political influencers and governments, and through surreptitious interference in nominations and elections such as the one in which we are now engaged? Moderator to Carney : You are now the leader of a political party that employs the politics of fear as the quickest and cheapest way to gain public support — fear of pandemics, fear of catastrophic global warming and now fear of U.S. President Donald Trump.
So, my question: will the politics of fear continue to be a manipulative tactic of the Liberal party under your leadership? Moderator to Carney and Poilievre : Many Canadians feel that democracy in Canada is broken. Our elected House of Commons has not met for 125 days and counting. Our Senate continues to be an unelected and unaccountable disgrace.
Voter turnout is plummeting, and de facto bribes like carbon rebate payments are offered by the government to voters just before election day. So my question: what reforms do you propose to restore the faith of Canadians in our broken democratic system? While these questions were not asked or answered in the leaders’ debates, it would be beneficial if this were to occur in the next week, to inform Canadians as we prepare to cast our votes on April 28. National Post Preston Manning, a former Alberta MP and federal Opposition leader, founded the Reform Party of Canada.
Kelly McParland: Debate proved Ottawa's leaders need to look inside themselvesSay hello to the new Liberal-NDP alliance: Full Comment podcast.
