Roundup: Hostile territory and the first debate

While it was a quieter day on the campaign because of the Maclean’s debate during the evening, there were still a few events to set the tone of the day. Jagmeet Singh was first up by staging a photo op in Brampton near the local hospital, where he had a bunch of candidates and supporters line up, and someone held up a sign that said “waiting for healthcare” before he talked about…building a new hospital in the city. Which is provincial jurisdiction. And then he claimed that it was about offering the provincial government money to build one, which again, isn’t how this works.

Andrew Scheer went to re-announce his policy on a tax credit for parental leave, falsely billing it as making those benefits “tax-free” (which it absolutely does not do, and here’s tax economist Lindsay Tedds to break it down), before he got sidelined because the candidate in the riding he was making the re-announcement was outed as being an anti-abortion activist who wants to build a “monument to the unborn,” and he had to again address the issue – and she talked about how great it was that Scheer would allow free votes on the subject.

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1172224257142611968

As for Trudeau, things were already off to a bit of a rough start after the media bus managed to damage the wing of his campaign plane on Wednesday night after they landed in Victoria, forcing them to get a new, un-branded plane for their day’s travels to Victoria – where he announced tweaks to the first-time home-buyers plan that was announced in the budget, but with new measures to assist those in hot housing markets along with a national speculators tax. His campaign later went to Kamloops, and then to Edmonton for a rally. There, he framed everything around his team, and minimized the talk about himself, but he also acknowledged the economic anxiety in the province, saying that the rest of Canada would be there for them, saying that he was holding to his promise never to pit regions against each other. I’m sure that will be disputed by some, but it was interesting. Also interesting was the tactical choice for Trudeau to campaign in Edmonton – specifically the vacant riding of Edmonton Strathcona, which the NDP held – on day two of the campaign, in a province whose premier is working hard to try and topple the government. It does send a message that Trudeau chose to be there rather than the debate – but we’ll see if that message resonates.

And then the debate. It was…not all that illuminating. While Elizabeth May was Elizabeth May – speaking extemporaneously on all things, and some of those things made sense and other things were complete lunacy – it was the first test of Scheer and Singh in that kind of a format. Singh turned to the others to make his interventions, and kept bring up people that he met who expressed concerns about whatever the topic was, while Scheer kept looking straight at the camera, and trying to wedge in his memorized talking points about Trudeau at every opportunity, no matter how inopportune or inappropriate to the discussion. Both Singh and Scheer stuck to scripted points, but a couple of more robust discussion did break out, and Paul Wells managed to get each of the leaders to expound on their tepid responses to Bill 21 in Quebec. The biggest…surprise of the night was when Scheer had a complete meltdown on the subject of UNDRIP and Indigenous consultation with resource projects, which could very well work against him as those communities mobilize to vote.

Other election stories:

  • After a Quebec court struck down portions of the federal assisted dying legislation, that became a topic of discussion that leaders were asked about.
  • Trudeau said that the Cabinet confidence waiver for the Double-Hyphen Affair was the “most expansive” in Canada’s history – which isn’t really true.
  • The NDP made false claims about the Liberals as regards drug prices.
  • One Conservative candidate stepped down after social media posts were discovered that he didn’t disclose (allegedly white supremacist in nature).
  • A Green candidate stepped down after he was found to have bragged about sending pig carcasses to Muslims.
  • After Elizabeth May insisted that Pierre Nantel wasn’t a separatist, Nantel said “Of course I’m a sovereigntist.” So we’ll see if he’s still a candidate in the next few days.

Good reads:

  • The Library of Parliament (which runs the parliamentary guide programme) says that they have not instructed guides to say the Senate is now “less partisan.”
  • Aaron Wherry writes about why Trudeau can’t simply write off Alberta.
  • Regarding May and Nantel, Chris Selley says it’s more disturbing that any party would allow support for Bill 21 than they do separatist sentiments.
  • Susan Delacourt goes through what the election-related Google searches have been.
  • Chantal Hébert notes the way in which Bill 21 became a bit of a sleeper issue so early in the campaign.
  • Robert Hiltz evaluates the main party leaders’ performances on Day One, in his particularly acid fashion.

Odds and ends:

I was on CPAC’s Have Your Say show yesterday as a guest panellist.

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.

2 thoughts on “Roundup: Hostile territory and the first debate

  1. Blast from the past: I wonder how many people will get May’s “Charlie McCarthy” reference. Probably go way over the heads of the millennial Green voters. Surprised Andy Trump didn’t snap back with “no puppet, no puppet, you’re the puppet!”

    Just not ready… nice orange hair, though?

  2. “…the candidate in the riding he was making the re-announcement was outed as being an anti-abortion activist…”

    Jonathan Kay had a great article in the Post today: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jonathan-kay-why-progressives-desperately-stifle-any-dissent-on-abortion-even-from-elizabeth-may

    He points out that a majority of Canadians favour some limits on abortion choice and concludes “I know of no other policy issue that features such a massive disjunction between elite-enforced orthodoxy and the actual views of ordinary Canadians.”

Comments are closed.