UPDATE: The time for the French language debate was moved to 6 p.m. Eastern on Wednesday. The English language debate will still be held at 8 p.m. Eastern on Thursday.
The federal leaders’ debates are almost upon us! Indeed, since the first leaders’ debate was televised in 1968, the major party’s candidates have cavened each election season to discuss – and sometimes scream about – the issues that matter to Canadians. From climate change to the economy and Canada-US relations, each party gets the opportunity to tout their own plans. They’ll also get plenty of time to spar with their political rivals! .
The five men debating (yes, it’s sadly all men this time) will be Liberal Leader, Prime Minister Mark Carney, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, NDP Leader Jagmeet Signh, Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet, and Green Party co-leader Jonathan Pedneault. Televised
The French-language Leaders’ debate will take place at 8 p.m. on April 16. The second, English language debate will air at 7 p.m. on April 17. Both debates will be available to watch on CBC television or to stream through CBC Gem and CBC’s YouTube channel.
But what should we voters be looking for when we tune into the debates? How can you tell which leaders’ arguments are solid and which have bigger holes than your favourite donut at Tim Hortons?
The team at rabble.ca has assembled a list of tips to help you understand what to look for…
Tip #1: Watch for policy differences
The Leaders’ Debate is a great opportunity for the country’s top politicians to clarify and differentiate their policies – if they take it. Dr. Daniel Westlake is an assistant professor of Political Studies at the University of Saskatchewan. He explains, “When I think about election debates, I think less about who won or lost and more about whether a leader was able to focus attention on an issue in a way that is likely to resonate beyond the debate.”
Many years the debates are a forgettable collection of each side’s blandest sound bites, but sometimes, there are important points made. Westlake points to the Federal Leaders’ Debate of 1988. According to the professor, “The exchange…between John Turner and Brian Mulroney over free trade…allowed the Liberal party to paint themselves as the party opposed to free trade.” Ultimately, that ‘88 debate may have prevented the Liberals from ending that election in third place.
Tip #2: Look for style over substance
Sure,it can be fun to watch politicians fly insults at one another while wearing their blandest grey suits; however, a good zinger is not the same as a good argument. While I for one will never forget when then NDP leader Jack Layton used the social media term “#fail” to criticise his political opponents in the 2011 Leaders’ Debate. And sure, a quotable line or two can help voters connect with a candidate’s message. However, at a certain point, viewers should also be looking for substance. IF a leader says they’ll stimulate the economy, they should be explaining HOW. If they argue their party is best placed to take on Trump, they should be explaining why.
Without a track record or a policy proposal to point to, an assertion one’s plan is better than another party’s is just a braggadocious assertion, and nothing more!
TIP #3: Consider each leaders’ language proficiency in both official languages
Our party leaders are not required by law to be bilingual, but since Canada is officially a bilingual nation, the ability to communicate in both English and in French is beneficial – and some would say, essential. Since our party Leaders will be holding debates in both official languages, there will be ample time to assess their language skills.
Tip #4 watch what each party emphasizes
While the moderator ensures a host of topics will get addressed during a leaders’ debate, watch for the talking points to which each leader returns. For example, if a leader keeps returning to plans to cut taxes – no matter what the topic – that’s probably a top priority for them, or at least the policy they think could win them the most votes.
Tip #5: watch out for quality refutation
Refutation essentially refers to the process by which one proves another person’s argument is wrong, or flawed. In order to refute one’s opponent, the speaker must look for logical holes in the audience or point to a lack of supporting evidence.
So what does bad refutation look like? Let’s consider a discussion where the leaders are discussing which party is best placed to manage Canada’s national security, with Poilievre arguing the Conservatives have a track record of taking Canada’s national security more seriously than any other party. Naturally, the other party members will want to refute the Opposition Leader’s claims of superiority. But what should that sound like? The answer is that you want to rely on facts over childish ad hominem attacks…
Example A): A poor – if entertaining – response: “The Conservative Party lacks the backbone, the balls, and the intelligence to keep Canada Safe.”
Example B): A better response: “Pierre Poilievre has repeatedly refused calls to submit to a background check that would enable him to have security clearance. A leader who is not willing to go through a background check in order to access information that is vital to Canada’s security interests is not committed to keeping this country safe. It would be laughable to say otherwise.”
Tip #6: Don’t get distracted by the “gotcha moments”
Former NDP member of Parliament and Off The Hill co-host Libby Davies knows a thing or two about She knows that what the mainstream media is looking for in these debates isn’t necessarily what matters. Says Davies, “The mainstream media are obsessed with ‘gotcha’ moments and encourage sharp interchange and interruptions amongst the leaders.” But it’s important that we the voters not fall for such distractions. Davies explains it’s more important to ask yourself, “Who looks at ease and answers questions with confidence and knowledgeable answers rather than trying to score points like it’s a sports game?”
Tip #7: It’s okay to come to your own conclusion about who won the debate
Voters are allowed to have their own unique priorities. If your friends on the metaphorical mainstreet of social media are all cheering from one party’s policies regarding Canada-US relations, for example, you’re still allowed to be disappointed with their approach to climate change/labour rights/gender equality. Democracy often, democracy is actually better when we disagree!
Support rabble today!
We’re so glad you stopped by! Thanks for consuming rabble content this year.
rabble.ca is 100% reader and donor funded, so as an avid reader of our content, we hope you will consider gifting rabble with a donation during our summer fundraiser today.
Whether it be a one-time donation or a small monthly contribution, your support is critical to keep rabble writers producing the work you’ve come to rely on as a part of a healthy media diet.
Become a rabble rouser — donate to rabble.ca today.
Nick Seebruch, editor
