By: Jessica Barclay & Mikaela Collins
The Monday evening federal election leaders’ squabbles featured talking points, elevator pitches, and little of actual substance regarding platforms and promises.
The debate was set up by the Leaders’ Debates Commission and is the only English-language debate where all six federal leaders will share the stage, and no clear winner — or even an unclear winner — emerged. The pace was fast; the questions were asked and the responses moderated by a rotation of five journalists, and the response time allowed for each candidate was typically between 40 seconds and a minute. Instead of being brief and to the point, however, the party leaders took every opportunity to jab at their opponents and make desperate grasps for voters with vague elevator pitches. The moderators attempted to force meaningful discourse a few times, but the leaders would, reliably and almost instantly, go back to talking over each other. When told that the audience couldn’t hear what they were saying, they didn’t seem concerned. As Macleans said: “Watching the 2019 leaders debate was like filling your plate at a buffet with too many different kinds of dishes on offer.” You’re left stuffed, mildly sickened, and slightly uncertain of what you have just consumed.
The leaders could barely stay on topic during the most structured parts of the debate, but during the open debates, which capped each topic section, things completely fell apart. During this time, candidates could ask their own questions of any other leader and the time allotted was for the exchange as a whole, not each particular candidate. Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer was allowed to begin the open debate on polarization, human rights, and immigration. Instead of asking about policy, he chose to proceed with a personal attack on Justin Trudeau, and worse, a rhetorical question: “When did you decide that the rules don’t apply to you?” Things did not improve from there.
For those unclear on whom they will be voting for in the upcoming election, the debate did not successfully clarify any of the parties’ platforms — unless the Conservative party’s platform is “Slander everyone else so you don’t have to talk about yourself” and the Liberal party’s platform is “Everything is fine, don’t worry about it, and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.”
Was this entertaining? For about 20 minutes, sure. But was it valuable? Was it informative? Did it help even one Canadian who was legitimately on the fence decide whom to vote for? I sincerely doubt it. The truth is, this debate was not designed to provide information to Canadians, and it’s unclear if any of the candidates entered it in good faith.
A number of reliable journalistic sources have written summaries on the parties’ political platforms based on speeches, comments, and social media posts, and are considerably more informative than debates or the parties’ official website platforms. Televised debates are an artifact of a time before recallable information and engagement with candidates were only as far away as your phone screen.
Your vote will impact the direction Canada takes over the next four years; seek to inform yourself from reputable third parties, especially those with firsthand access to politicians, and experts who can provide in-depth analyses on complex issues and explain what policies really mean. And, most importantly, get out and vote on October 21.
