The reasons for Carney skipping the debate are dishonourable, but that almost seems trite to say
The reasons for Carney skipping the debate are dishonourable, but that almost seems trite to say
The reasons for Carney skipping the debate are dishonourable, but that almost seems trite to say
“I’m not hiding at all,” Mark Carney protested on Monday. It was a not very good answer to the question of why the Liberal leader was skipping a proposed French-language leaders’ debate on Quebec television news network TVA. That debate has now been cancelled, thanks to Carney, after three elections in a row where TVA put on a pretty good show, and we’re all poorer for it.
It didn’t help Carney that he initially seemed up for it: “Why not?” he asked rhetorically on Monday before the party officially shut down any such talk. Carney then attempted to blame his reticence on TVA not inviting one or both of the Green Party leaders, which was not very convincing at all. There was also the tricky question of the $75,000 each TVA was asking from the candidates to host the debate, citing poor finances.
Nevertheless, Carney’s no-show seems to make sense to most commentators. Why would he parade his inelegant French on television more than he had to, especially when he’s already gaining in Quebec — closing in on 40 per cent support, according to recent polls? Much of that support has come from the Bloc Québécois, and you can guarantee BQ Leader Yves-François Blanchet would enjoy taking Carney’s French apart bit by bit to the largest possible audience.
On Tuesday, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre kindly offered to pay the Liberals’ $75,000 fee along with his own. “If he’s still too weak and fragile to debate at TVA, then he’s too weak and fragile to stand up to Donald Trump and for our country,” said Poilievre.
Ouch. If Carney had just said “yes,” he wouldn’t be any worse off today. Indeed, he may have missed several tricks here. To say he’s getting bad press for skipping the debate in Quebec is an understatement (including bad press that about his French that he supposedly doesn’t want people to hear).
In Le Journal de Montréal, Guillaume St-Pierre suggested Carney had initially answered “why not?” to the TVA debate because he simply didn’t understand the question put to him in French.
On TVA’s various outlets, Conservative MP Dominique Viens suggested Carney might be unaware of the debate being must-see viewing in Quebec because he hasn’t “spent much time in Quebec in recent years.” and Bloc MP Christine Norman likened it to “turning your back on Quebecers.”
If Carney had just said ‘yes,’ he wouldn’t be any worse off today
There are other reasons Carney might not relish a Quebec debate. He hasn’t said anything about Quebec’s Bill 96 (no teachers in hijabs) or Bill 26 (ludicrous further restrictions on minority-language rights). He dodged those questions at the French Liberal candidates’ debate. If Carney can keep up that silence, it’s easy to see the temptation. To appeal simultaneously to the nationalist instincts behind those two provincially popular bills and to refer to the Liberal Party of Canada as the “party of the Charter” is simply impossible.
Of the four major party candidates, only Blanchet (who believes neither bill goes far enough) would likely be interested in raising the issue. French-language debates are where he would try doing it to maximum effect. Carney’s association with Mike Wiseman, co-founder of the Century Initiative — which advocates for there to be 100 million Canadians by the year 2100 — and recently appointed to Carney’s advisory committee on Canada-U.S. relations, could also be radioactive in Quebec.
None of those are honourable reasons for Carney to avoid a debate, of course, but that seems almost trite to say.
The biggest proviso for Team Carney would be that Quebec voters have made fools of strategists and pundits many times throughout history. People used to think Jack Layton’s anglophone-accented French (while it was much better than Carney’s) and his history in Ontario politics were disqualifying, until they weren’t.
It has been suggested that Carney is enjoying a sort of “honeymoon” in the polls in Quebec. The worst thing you can do on a honeymoon, surely, is ignore your beloved. And as savage as some commentators can be about anglophones’ French, there is also a history of Quebecers appreciating the effort of showing up.
Again, at the risk of sounding trite, there’s also the fundamental issue that leaders should debate more than twice. We’ve rarely had two more different people vying for the PMO, especially with respect to tone: Poilievre’s elbows are sharper than Carney’s. And in Donald Trump’s universe especially, tone really matters.
There are many other issues to be discussed between now and April 28, but none will likely be bigger than which man can best handle the Trumpian Menace. There is no better venue for Canadians to decide than through vigorous debates.
National Post
cselley@postmedia.com
Get more deep-dive National Post political coverage and analysis in your inbox with the Political Hack newsletter, where Ottawa bureau chief Stuart Thomson and political analyst Tasha Kheiriddin get at what’s really going on behind the scenes on Parliament Hill every Wednesday and Friday, exclusively for subscribers. Sign up here.
Discover more from World Byte News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.