After taking part in many leaders’ debates during the 2015 federal election campaign, I may be in a unique position to comment on the Liberals’ refusal to participate in the now-cancelled TVA French debate.
When Canada’s main private French network said it wanted help in paying for its “Face à Face” leaders' debate, there were some raised eyebrows. (Full disclosure: I work at TVA and its all-news channel, LCN).
TVA requested $75,000 from each of the four parties (the Greens have always been excluded from these debates for lack of any seats in Quebec).
As a veteran of many leaders’ debates, I can say the “Face-à-Face” was easily the most lively and polished. Because in “Face- à -Face,” you actually debate. You have to be on your toes and at the top of your game. Instead of putting the kibosh on it, it should be a model. Debating in the round, facing your opponents. Strong, real, informative.
TVA had to lay off over 500 staff recently. It’s suffering like all mainstream media. Asking for $300,000 to help fund “the production of the actual debate” (to use the wording of the Commission) may have been unusual, but so are the current circumstances for Canadian media.
The Commission has to put on two debates: one French and one English. TVA was asking for help that amounts to about one-fifth of the cost of each taxpayer supported debate, which rings in at about $1.5 million apiece.
A small side note: they’ve decided that the French debate will take place on April 16 at 8 p.m. in Montreal. If any of the geniuses planning this thing had bothered to ask if that would interfere with any other events in Montreal that evening, they’d have discovered that the final game of the Montreal Canadiens’ regular season was being played at 7 p.m. The Habs will be hosting the Carolina Hurricanes. The Canadiens are fighting for a playoff spot and if those hopes are still alive on April 16, guess what folks will be watching?
Back to my main point: The Bloc, the Conservatives and the NDP agreed to the request. On Monday morning, Liberal Leader Mark Carney got a question as to whether or not the Liberals would take part and he said: “Pourquoi pas?” (Why not?). Carney appeared to be on board.
Later in the day, the Liberals sent out notice that they were refusing to take part in the “Face-à-Face” and as a result, TVA said the debate was cancelled.
Now I guess it’s fair to ask: why should there be two French debates and only one English one? Even though that’s not the excuse the Liberals used, it’s worth addressing.
Coverage of the campaign is so heavily skewed towards English, that the debates are really the best opportunity to get deeper information on candidates and platforms, for the eight million Canadians whose language is French. Let me give you a single example: During Sunday’s campaign launch, there was only one single French question, the very last one to boot (although Carney had gamely translated a few of his English answers). English reporters got all of the questions, except one. A second French debate isn’t favouritism, it’s a way to help redress that severe imbalance.
To try to justify their refusal to take part, the Liberals have offered up a smorgasbord of pretexts that varied from the absence of Green Party Leader Elizabeth May to high sounding principles about not paying journalists.
On May, it’s worth pointing out that she has decided, presumptuously, that her “co-leader” Jonathan Pedneault will represent the Green Party during the debates. How that could actually work is unclear and no other party, to my knowledge, has accepted that a party leader can form a tag team and send in an anointed co-leader to debate for them. Sounds a bit odd and likely won’t be allowed.
Carney’s own stand-in, his Quebec Lieutenant Stephen Guilbeault, tried his own tack. He gave an interview to TVA journalist Paul Larocque that was essentially focused on the money. Larocque, always a model of decorum and restraint, had been scheduled to moderate the “Face-à-Face.” Despite the cancellation, he played it straight with Guilbeault, who seemed to have trouble settling on an excuse. In full rhetorical flight, Guilbeault asked whether politicians would now start getting asked to pay journalists to interview them. It wasn’t pretty.
The fact of the matter is, Carney’s campaign has thus far been greeted with keen interest from Quebecers. Adversaries and pundits who holler that he can barely speak French have been met with a “oui, mais…”. That’s “yes, but…,” and the “but” is followed by: in a time of real crisis we need someone who knows how to handle a real crisis.
Carney’s exceptional experience and expertise, his personal likeability and his willingness to engage have pulled him well ahead in the polls in Quebec.
Then this mess happened.
Since we’re on the subject of language, can you indulge me in sharing my favourite made-up French word? “atopeluredebananisation.”
A “pelure de banane” is a banana peel and the joke is that sometimes people carry around their own banana peel so that they can throw it in front of themselves. That’s what the Liberals have done here.
It wasn’t Carney’s fault, he’d clearly said “why not” take part, which everyone took to mean the Liberals were in.
Somehow, somewhere, someone or a group of someones on the campaign made a spectacularly bad call.
Carney’s opponents have been all over it. I was in studio doing the “La Joute” panel show right after the Liberals cancelled. Even French-language media colleagues who had been very open to Carney’s ideas and his campaign were blowing head gaskets. His opponents, of course, were having a field day.
Since Carney himself had made that earlier statement, he could still correct course.
The same nervous Nellies around Carney will probably counsel that a reversal would indicate indecision. On the contrary, it would show that he knows how to listen and is the one who decides.
And that’s what this election is supposed to be about, choosing the right person to decide.
Tom Mulcair was the leader of the federal New Democratic Party of Canada between 2012 and 2017
