Skipping a French debate makes sense for Mark Carney — for now: Selley

Article content

Mark Carney protested on Monday: “I’m not hiding at all.” This is not a good answer to why liberals skipped the proposed French-language leader debate on TVA on the Quebec TV News Network. Thanks to Carney, TVA had a good show in three straight elections, we all canceled the debate for it, we all terrible for it.

Article content

He initially seemed to have helped with it: “Why not?” He asked carefully Monday before the party officially closed any such speeches. Carney then tries to blame his silence on TVA’s failure to invite one or two Green Party leaders, which is simply not very convincing. There is also a tricky problem, that is, each TVA requires candidates to ask for $75,000 for debate, citing poor financial conditions.

Still, Carney’s unrepresentation seems to make sense to most commentators. According to recent polls, why did he cruising his French on TV more than he had to, especially when he had already won in Quebec – ending 40% of his support? Most of these support comes from the group Québécois, and you can guarantee that BQ leader Yves-François Blanchet will love to bring Carney’s Frenchman out of the box.

Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre was willing to join himself in paying the $75,000 fee for liberals on Tuesday. “If he is still too weak and vulnerable to debate on TVA, he is too weak and vulnerable to stand up, not to stand up, not to stand up, not to our country,” Poilievre said.

Article content

Article content

Ouch. If Carney had just said “yes”, he wouldn’t be worse today. Indeed, he might have missed a few tricks here. To say that the media he got bad for his debate in Quebec is an understatement (including the bad media about his France, which he said he doesn’t want people to hear).

In the Le Journal de Montréal in Montreal, Guillaume St-Pierre suggested that Carney initially answer “Why not?” in the TVA debate because he simply did not understand the questions raised by French.

On TVA’s various channels, conservative MP Dominique Viens believes Carney may not be aware of the debate that Quebec must see because he “has not been in Quebec for a lot of time in recent years.” Group MP Christine Norman likened it to a “turning to the Quebec.”

If Carney had just said “yes”, he wouldn’t have been worse today

Carney may not like other reasons why the Quebec debate is. He has not said anything about Quebec’s Bill 96 (teacher without hijacks) or Bill 26 (a ridiculous further restriction on minority rights). He escaped these issues in the debate on French liberal candidates. If Carney can keep silent, it’s easy to see the temptation. Meanwhile, calling on the nationalist instinct behind the bills prevailing in the two provinces and calling the Canadian Liberal Party the “Charge Party.”

Article content

Of the four major party candidates, only Blanchet, who thinks both bills are far enough, may be interested in asking the question. French debate is where he will try to make the most effect. Carney and Mike Wiseman, co-founder of the Century Co-founder Initiative (advocating by 2100, the program both advocated 100 million Canadians – recently appointed Carney Canada – the Advisory Committee on Relations, which can also be radioactive in Quebec.

Of course, none of these are glorious reasons Carney avoids debate, but it seems almost difficult.

The biggest condition for the Carney team is that Quebec voters have fooled strategists and experts many times throughout history. Jack Layton used to think of a condensed French in English (although much better than Carney), and his history of Ontario politics has been disqualified until they didn’t.

Some have suggested that Carney enjoyed a kind of “honeymoon” in a Quebec poll. The worst thing you can do on your honeymoon is to ignore your beloved. And, while some commentators may be barbarians about the English-speaking French, Quebecs also appreciated the efforts that emerged.

Article content

Similarly, at the risk of clichés, leaders should debate the fundamental issues more than twice. Rarely are two different people fighting for PMO, especially in terms of tone: Poilievre’s elbows are more pronounced than Carney’s. Especially in Donald Trump’s universe, tone is really important.

There are many other issues to discuss from now until April 28, but no one can handle the Trump threat best. There is no better place to decide than through intense debate.

State Post
cselley@postmedia.com

Getting deeper national postal political coverage and analysis in the inbox of the newsletter with political hackers, Ottawa Bureau chief Stuart Thomson and political analyst Tasha Kheiriddin are all behind the scenes behind what actually happens every Wednesday and Friday. Register here.

Article content