As a bilingual native Quebecer, I always dread French political debates where no one speaks the language fluently. But one must make these things tolerable, so Monday night, 8 p.m., my daughter and I settled in to play “Judge the French” at the Liberal leadership debate, which was also the only way to convince an apolitical teenager to watch. The verdict? Frank Baylis’ French was good, Karina Gould’s and Chrystia Freeland’s was fine, and Mark Carney’s was not. It was better in the press conference that followed, but during the main event, Carney tripped up, most notably when he said, “we agree with Hamas,” instead of “we agree about Hamas,” to the delight of Conservatives all over social media.
No rational person believes that Carney sympathizes with a band of debauched terrorists, but the stumble, while damaging in a leadership debate, would have been more serious in an election debate. Had this happened onstage with Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre and Bloc Québécois Leader Yves François Blanchet, there would have been blood all over the floor. Carney’s weak French also prevented him from responding to fellow debaters’ comments and jumping in, which allowed them to dominate the debate at his expense.
Freeland was the most combative of the bunch. She started off the evening by invoking U.S. President Donald Trump and styled herself as the most apt to take him on, given her prior experience negotiating the Canada U.S. Mexico Agreement in 2018. Gould staked her claim to the left wing of the party, floating the idea of a guaranteed annual income for seniors and the disabled. She repeatedly called herself the “candidate of the future” (it’s “avenir,” not “futur,” by the way) and would continue taxing carbon to keep the planet habitable for her children. Baylis played off his business bona fides, noting he had negotiated “hundreds” of contracts and was thus ready to take on Trump.
Which brings us to the two main takeaways from the night. The first was that the Liberals will make Trump the ballot question (no surprise) and that they will paint Poilievre as his mini-me. Freeland declared Trump the worst threat to Canada since the Second World War, Carney intoned that “Pierre Poilievre is a man who venerates Mr. Trump,” while Gould stated “Mr. Poilievre will do what Trump wants.” Carney also reminded viewers that Poilievre voted against Canada’s free trade deal with Ukraine “for ideological reasons” — a sore spot considering Trump’s current shakedown of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
The second takeaway was that the candidates agree with each other on most things. Two of Quebec’s main three newspapers noted this in their headlines, agreeing that, well, the Liberals agree. Neither Carney nor Freeland would cut transfers to the provinces. Both would cut the GST on new housing. All candidates want to build more housing. They also all oppose Quebec’s Bill 21, its law on State Secularism. The separatist-sympathetic Journal de Montreal mentioned this as well, and noted that the candidates’ French was ok, if their positions were vague.
Hmm. Were this any other election year, I suspect the Quebec media would not have been as charitable. But it speaks to the existential dread the province is feeling at the fear of being annexed by the United States. Donald Trump doesn’t speak French. Today’s Captain Canada is defined less by mastery of both languages, as by his or her ability to defend the nation against the menace next door.
Assuming Carney wins the leadership, which is still the general prediction, the issue will be whether he is that guy, rather than Poilievre. This debate provided a clue. Carney didn’t trample Freeland once; in certain moments, he actively ceded the floor to her. Was this a language issue, a sign of debate inexperience, or did he just not want to look like a jerk? Because a lot of voters will be looking for the anti-jerk in this election. Even if he doesn’t speak perfect French.
Postmedia News
Tasha Kheiriddin is Postmedia’s national politics columnist.