Robin V. Sears

September 10, 2021

If Justin Trudeau is no longer prime minister a few weeks from now, we will trace the beginning of the end to mid-debate, around 10 pm Thursday night. The prime minister shares little with his father, but one thing they have in common is a steely anger. Trudeau the younger was, until recently, much wiser than his father in his anger management.. He usually kept his occasionally explosive bad temper behind closed doors.

Halfway through the English debate Canadians saw in the hateful glances, clenched jaw and gratuitous jabs spat out in barely contained rage, a different Trudeau, 180 degrees different from the 2015 edition. It was not pretty. Yes, he was under attack; and yes, many of the attacks from Jagmeet Singh and Erin O’Toole were designed to taunt him into dangerous rhetorical territory. As a veteran of 12 years in public life, half of them as prime minister, he should not have allowed himself to get so visibly riled.

When Green Leader Annamie Paul – who had a surprisingly good night – smacked him with not being a real feminist, rhyming off the names of the women he had forced out of  his cabinet and party, the reaction shot of his seething looked as if he might spiral right out of control. Then he let fly with probably the low point of the night, “I won’t take lessons on caucus management from you!”

It was very revealing of Trudeau’s dark side and stupid on two levels. Paul’s point had nothing to do with caucus management, rather it was a challenge to his constant feminist virtue signalling versus his very rough treatment of some women in his caucus. Secondly, his jab at Paul’s caucus management was a reference to Dominic Leblanc’s successful wooing of a Green MP into the Liberal caucus, not an entirely salubrious affair on any side. There have been increasing signs of this new, less sunny Trudeau throughout the campaign, starting with his imprudent denunciation of “angry anti-vaxxer mobs.”

His putdown of the nasty Ezra Levant and Co., Rebel Media, the previous night following the French debate, was a masterful destruction of a deserving target. It did make one wonder, however, about the real trigger for its intensity. Increasingly, he appears to be behaving like a man who has never lost, dreading as hears 50 this coming Christmas Day that he may be days away from a severe pubic humiliation.

The debate was a small success for O’Toole and Singh, who each landed successful punches, and deflected those directed at them. But neither leader had a memorable attack line. A version of Jack Layton’s demolition of Michael Ignatieff, that given his terrible record of House attendance he surely should not be seeking a promotion to prime minister, sat waiting to be used as a smack at Trudeau’s selfish character: “You do not get another four years in your job, based on your abysmal performance in the last six, just because you think you can demand it by forcing an unnecessary election.”

The debate was a small success for O’Toole and Singh, who each landed successful punches, and deflected those directed at them. But neither leader had a memorable attack line.

Annamie Paul was the pleasant surprise of the night: poised, unflappable, authentic and mostly polite and non-partisan – except when she wasn’t. In addition to her effective jab at Trudeau’s endless irritating feminist claims, she delivered a powerful kick to Blanchet’s nether regions. She offered to educate him about systemic racism. When he howled at being insulted, she mildly responded it was not an insult, merely an invitation.

Blanchet had the worst night, next to Trudeau, often clearly losing his train of thought, and babbling in non-sequiturs. He was genuinely rattled by the attack on Quebec as racist and xenophobic, beginning with a snide and loaded question from moderator Shachi Kurl off the top, a curious lapse on the part of the debate organizers, who must avoid at all costs appearing partisan.

Those debate organizers, and the childishly competitive networks who still run the show, should be shown the door after this year’s debates. We had no real debate as a result of their game show structure, a Shark’s Den reality show chopped into 45 second sound bites. The format worked well for O’Toole who only speaks in 45 second sound bites. It was brutal for Trudeau who was constantly being cut off mid-sentence.

This new debates commission was set up in response to criticisms of previous game show debates. Incredibly, they have managed to make them worse. They must go. A more serious effort at debate reform is now urgent: new commission, new guiding principles and mandate, and professional television production teams with no connection to any network.

The format worked well for O’Toole who only speaks in 45 second sound bites. It was brutal for Trudeau who was constantly being cut off mid-sentence.

Politicians and their debate coach prep teams often forget that debates are always about character, and that character is conveyed by performance and demeanour, not the best zinger. I’m betting that Justin Trudeau did not do much serious debate prep. He was caught flat-footed on too many issues that he should have had tight, disciplined responses to. Or else he had a debate prep team who should be fired.

Blanchet and Trudeau came across as angry entitled men, enraged at being under attack, by presumptuous reporters and opponents. Paul emerged as someone you would like to get to know better, a person of grace, character and steel. Jagmeet Singh and Erin O’Toole came across as the men they are: authentic, confident and empathetic, though neither demonstrated sufficient skill at thrusting their debate rapiers through Trudeau’s rhetorical armour.

But many Canadians who watched will likely have gone to bed saying to themselves, “Do I really want someone who is clearly so angry and spiteful to lead my country?”

Contributing Writer Robin V. Sears, a former national director of the NDP during the Broadbent years, is an independent communications consultant based in Ottawa.