Evan Bray’s political panel reviews the federal leaders’ debate

With just over a week before Canadians head to the polls and choose the country’s next federal government, there are a lot of issues at play.

On Thursday’s edition of The Evan Bray Show, host Evan Bray was joined by his weekly political panel to analyze the latest in the campaign so far and discuss some of the biggest issues that are on the minds of many voters, in Saskatchewan and across the nation.

Joining Bray were John Gormley, a lawyer with Seiferling Law, former Progressive Conservative MP and long-time host on 650 CKOM and 980 CJME, Doug Richardson, a former lawyer and Liberal supporter who served as chief of staff to Prime Minister John Turner, and Cathy Sproule, a former NDP MLA representing Saskatoon Nutana.

Listen to the full panel discussion here:

The following questions and answers have been edited for length and clarity.

BRAY: I’m really curious to hear your thoughts on the French language debate, on how the four leaders did. This is the first time we saw them together in one room and debating the numerous issues that are important.

SPROULE: I tried watching it, but I find the English translation really distracting. I sort of speak French, and then I wasn’t able to really tune into the French version of it, but I did watch the interviews afterwards. And I do have some comments about the commission, the leaders debate commission that I think royally screwed up.

BRAY: How so?

SPROULE: Just the way the commission decided to allocate questions, apparently, certain outlets got a number of vouchers, and they had to stand in line and line up early. So a lot of the non-conventional media were lining up hours earlier so that they could be first in line. And I mean the reaction of the leaders to questions that were completely irrelevant to the issues that are at hand during this campaign was entertaining. It really was the most entertaining part of the debate.

RICHARDSON: Ironically, just before we came in here, we were talking about our respective grandchildren. At my age, it’s a big surprise I just finally became a grandfather, but in the midst of the COVID pandemic, at the lowest possible point, something unique happened here in Saskatoon, which became a national story due to CKOM and the support of this station, a grandmother called Volker Gertz, the head of the world’s third largest pandemic center, and said, ‘Look, I am a pensioner. I don’t have much money, but I want to give $100 in the hopes that my grandchildren will not have to face what they faced through this pandemic.’ Last night, at the end of the debate, a woman was interviewed, and she said, ‘my greatest single fear is that my grandchildren are going to be American citizens.’ And for me, it was a telling point. We talked about this show several times, what is the election issue? That summed it up fairly well for me.

Read More:

• Poilievre expands crime agenda, Carney eyes defence modernization, Singh looks at health care
• Early voting open at University of Saskatchewan, University of Regina
• Party leaders make promises on job training, seniors scam protection, capital gains tax

GORMLEY: Mark Carney didn’t win. But more importantly, he didn’t lose. Pierre Poilievre, I thought was good. He was prime ministerial. He spoke directly to the camera. He distinguished himself on tax cuts, using the notwithstanding clause, Section 33 to finally get tough on crime. So the point is, Poilievre’s on the right track. Francois Blanchet always wins, the Block leader always wins. Jagmeet Singh, I thought sounded more petulant, but he was also attacking the wrong people. I mean, most of the NDP vote collapse has gone liberal. They’ve lost working class union members to the conservatives. But if I were an NDP strategist, I’d have to point at Carney. He was going after Poilievre, so I don’t think that was effective. So on balance, no real winners, no real losers.

SPROULE: I thought that Poilievre, Blanchet and Jagmeet, they’ve gone against each other so often. It’s kind of like an old match that they’re just revisiting. And Carney’s a complete unknown to them. We don’t know how he’s going to be in the House of Commons. We have no idea how he’s going to be as a politician. So there was a certain I think, maybe putting on comfortable shoes and going after each other like they have for the last many years.

BRAY: My first introduction to Jagmeet Singh felt like he was just kind of an everyday person that I could relate to, very conversational. Last night’s tone felt a lot different. It felt angry. It felt at times, to me, a bit whiny. Is that just indicative of what he’s been through in the last year?

SPROULE: I’m not sure. I’d agree 100 per cent with your characterization, but I think there’s got to be a lot of frustration right now on his part and part of his team, when we see what the numbers are doing and how people are just running in fear to this notion of the 51st state to and to make sure that Poilievre is not the Prime Minister.  That’s where the left vote is. Why it’s swinging to the to the center right is because they’re just fearful of Poilievre being the prime minister. There’s a lot of irony going on right now, and the NDP is suffering as a result of it. We’re looking at 1993 redux, I think, in terms of Canadian elections. I would characterize Singh as feisty. He is a genuine, down to earth person, and I’ve met him several times, and I get the same vibe. And I think that vibe was there last night. It was just perhaps a little more frustrated because of the situation we’re in with south of the border, which we don’t even hear about the news in the last few days. I think the Liberals are desperate to keep that as the ballot question, and both the NDP and the conservatives are desperate to change the question.

RICHARDSON: I feel badly. I think he’s been a good parliamentarian. We may disagree with some things, and I acknowledged on one of these shows before the NDP contribution to changing the social tenure of this country, I would argue for the better, where I thought Mr. Singh was last night, the frustration that came out has been two years of nothing but abuse and beat up an attack from Mr. Poilievre.

GORMLEY: For supporting the Liberals.

RICHARDSON: In fairness to him, he was enunciating policy. Poilievre has brought this whole thing on himself. He wanted to get rid of Mr. Trudeau, so he’s got rid of him. He wanted to get rid of carbon tax, so he’s got rid of it. He wanted to get get rid of Mr. Singh, and the net result has been a drain of the NDP vote.

GORMLEY: You did say one week ago, and I remind both of you friends, the suggestion that Mr. Singh will lose Surrey. Singh is going to lose Surrey center. He’s done, even as an MP.

SPROULE: Well, whether he does or doesn’t, I think as the coach of a team that’s not doing well, there will be some serious repercussions within the party. That’s the way it works. But on the other hand, he was here, I was at the rally, and his energy and his kindness and his genuineness will stick with me for a long time.

BRAY: How important are debates, generally in an election, and this year?

GORMLEY: I put more weight on debates, and I always have, because in politics, you start from the premise of you fish where the fish are. So you always go into the polls in the area where you know you have the most votes when you’re the two big parties. In particular, the people who are going to distinguish whether you have a minority or a majority are classically more undecided voters. And when you look at undecided voters, or, in other words, the voters who, quite easily will vote, you know, NDP to get the Orange Crush going, or Tory to get Brian Mulroney the biggest majority in history, or vote Liberal for, you know, Paul Martin and John, Cretien. I mean, there are voters who literally will go to different parties, and they aren’t hide bound, as the three of us are, with respect, by our party allegiances. So it’s those swing voters that the polls show do watch debates, and they are very influenced by what the talking heads tell them happened in the debates.

RICHARDSON: No one should dismiss the value of these debates. My hope, though, is that this English debate will deal with a couple of subjects that are important to Saskatchewan, number one, agriculture and number two, the indigenous issue.