Canadian political leaders Mark Carney, Pierre Poilievre, Yves Blanchet, and Jagmeet Singh debate in English from the Montreal television studios of the CBC.
REVIEW (editorialized)
Yves Blanchet, BLOC Quebecois called petroleum movement in pipelines a monstrosity.
How are pipelines monstrosities?
How about no energy in a world of 8.1 billion people. More the monstrosity is denying people energy.
There is no Canadian federal election. There is an election in Quebec for the heart and soul of Canadian federal politicians exclusive of any voters in Canada.
No one else matters but these four people debating in Quebec.
Maybe Carney is obsessed with being in the world, which is somehow detached from being in Canada. Before I shut it off, Carney began prattling about Canadian Taxpayers having to pay the burden of a world wide climate crisis.
No, to Carney. Absolutely NO on these climate change tropes.
At one moment I had to shut off the debate because Jagmeet Singh would not allow Pierre Poilievre to speak.
It seems crazy to have people such as these running a country.
I am going to vote for the most radical amount of change from existing governance in Canada.
If that happens to be Pierre Poilievre, so be it.
It's not because he's great. It's absolutely because the choices are dreadful.
The only province mentioned outside of 'all the provinces,' is Quebec.
This is getting old in Canada.
Singh returns to the Gaza scene being a genocide by Israel, which is an unspeakable turn of lies to support insane antisemitic policies.
When Poilievre discusses the Century Initiative, Singh goes full pitbull again, interrupting, talking over, and preventing his opponent from speaking.
Carney takes Conservative platform to heart, and talks about building the trades.
Blanchet lies and calls small nuclear plants more dangerous than large nuclear plants.
I would imagine hospitals and universities in Quebec have small nuclear plants like most universities, and hospitals.
But the truth would be terribly inconvenient to people who lead Canadians.
CONCLUSIONS
Singh says NDP in Parliament brought Medicare, and other benefits.
Carney makes his election position anti-Trump
Poilievre wants the old promises of Canada to come back
Blanchet wants Quebec to have sound relations with U.S.A. in trade.
(Afterthoughts: Blanchet was far more wary of attacking Poilievre.
The only province mentioned was Quebec. A couple times Marble-Mouth Carney attempted to squeak out 'Alberta.'
He failed. None of them mentioned northern Canada. None of them mentioned our coasts. None of them mentioned Newfoundland, or the Maritimes.
It was strictly a Quebec debate about Quebec.)
A lot of after-debate observers were struck by the amount of static noise the NDP leader generated through the middle of the debate.
This allowed zero traction to a Poilievre argument and occasionally a Carney argument, and Singh stymied debate between the two central combatants to the finish. I believe part of the failure to allow debate fell on Paikin. But the moderator did get the worst of it under control by the fourth and fifth round.
I wonder if it was the most effective way for Singh to portray his politics. Perhaps it was his best shot because at least he was present, and remembered.
Blanchet, once again, proved the most Patrician of the debaters. He delivered level headed responses in a timely manner and never strayed from topics.