James Moore is a former federal cabinet minister under prime minister Stephen Harper, and a columnist for CTVNews.ca.
Do leaders’ debates matter? Will these coming debates matter? Yes, but no. First, Canadians should watch the debates with an open mind and keen eye for sincerity of presentation, signs of depth and credibility, and try to decide which of these candidates has the strength and substance to sit across from Donald Trump in the chair occupied not long ago by Volodymyr Zelenskyy and defend Canada’s interests.
But second, engaged voters must look well beyond the leaders’ debates for the full answer to that question. These debates are the overhyped Hollywood moment of every federal and provincial election in Canada, and almost without exception, they serve to reinforce preconceived perceptions, do little to enlighten public policy debates, and typically are forgotten shortly after they’re over.
I have always had an antagonistic view of leaders’ debates. They are typically a gotcha communications exercise about exploiting the well-meaning curiosity of the country’s voters to emotionally charge cohorts of voters rather than a sincere presentation of competing views and values.
From the first major televised debates through to today, they have devolved further into micro communications windows that are to be clipped into social media hors d’oeuvres that are dished out in real time while the debates are still underway to drive clicks, donations, likes and anger.
As debates have come to mean less and less, they seem to garner more and more attention for reasons that escape me. Trump lost all his debates against Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris – quite spectacularly – and it didn’t matter to his eventual success in those campaigns.
By consensus opinion Jean Charest won the 1997 leaders’ debate but finished in fifth place in seat count. I could go on, but you get the point.
Skills least relevant to successful governing
So what exactly does a leaders’ debate showcase? In my view, precisely the skills that are the least relevant to successful governing. A winning debate performance is about being quick on your feet, snappy with a comeback, perhaps a flash of a sense of humour or rhetorical righteousness, or an ability to turn a phrase into a memorable quote.
Not one of these skills is a signal of the competence needed to govern a country as vast, complex and regionally, culturally and politically diverse as Canada. Successful governing isn’t based on any of these attributes. I don’t want a prime minister making quick and snap decisions based on their own sense of things and rushing to answer complex challenges or being glib.
Successful governing is about careful deliberation, clarity of purpose, defining outcomes, stakeholder engagement, considering and mitigating risks, pursuit of empathy, meticulous execution and accountability. The ability of a viewer of a contemporary leaders’ debate to discern any of these things is near impossible.
Consider this question that was asked of then-Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer in the 2019 leaders’ debate: “Mr. Scheer, you’ve said that a Conservative government would focus on practical things in its relationship to Canada’s Indigenous people.
As you pursue your promised energy corridor, practically speaking, how will you consult, accommodate and obtain consent from indigenous peoples. And what will you do when your plans come into conflict with Indigenous rights and interests?”
He had 60 seconds to answer. This isn’t serious. It’s a skit of an attempt to demonstrate the capacity needed to lead a G7 country.
There have been occasions where debates had some consequence, and in the coming days the John Turner vs. Brian Mulroney moment in 1988 will be discussed.
The Jack Layton jab at Michael Ignatieff in 2011 about not showing to work in Parliament and thus not being worthy of a promotion to prime minister may get a rehash.
We will probably be treated to looks at the 1988 U.S. vice presidential debate when Dan Quayle took a knockout blow from Lloyd Bentsen after the former compared himself to the late John F. Kennedy and Bentson devastatingly and dispassionately quipped “Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.”
But these moments are very rare, and candidates are so seasoned and generally incredible – all of them – at communicating that those shots almost never get through each other’s rhetorical defences.
Further, in both of Canada’s coming debates there will be five candidates (plus moderators) jockeying for camera time and all seeking the choice moment in the format that will allow them to challenge their preferred target, and it will be hard for one candidate to distinguish himself from the others.
So, in sum, watch the debates, take in what you see. But take the debates for what they are: an important communications exercise with political risks for leaders, but a very limited and flawed perspective on what counts in responsibly choosing the Prime Minister of Canada.
