By Fabian Dawson
Mata Press Service

More than three-quarters of Canadians who viewed the nationally televised 2021 election leaders’ debate say the moderator asked good questions and treated the party leaders on stage fairly, a poll by the commission responsible for the event has found.

But stakeholders interviewed by the Leaders' Debates Commission (LDC), which oversees the event, said the line of questioning from the moderator and journalists limited the ability of leaders to expound on their positions.

“The 75 percent approval rating by the public on the performance of the moderator is a very high number in polling circles but it seems the commission is using the hand-picked stakeholder's views to reach its conclusions,” said a political observer.

“They are essentially throwing the moderator under the bus after organizing and overseeing a clumsy debate,” he said.

The 2021 Canadian Election Study (CES) by the Leaders' Debates Commission (LDC) asked for post-debate feedback from the public and received more than 1,100 submissions from Canadians. The accompanying poll conducted by CES at the University of Toronto surveyed 2,000 Canadians on what makes successful debates.

The LDC in a report said it also interviewed more than 40 stakeholders on everything from how to choose a moderator, to how to improve interpretation.

“More than 10 million Canadians tuned in to the English-language debate and over four million watched the French-language debate. These numbers are large in comparison to both international debate ratings and Canadian television programming. For instance, in 2021, 8.8 million Canadians watched the Super Bowl,” said the report.

A pivotal moment in the election debate came when the English Language moderator, Shachi Kurl asked Bloc Quebecois leader Yves-François Blanchet to help Canadians outside Quebec understand why his party supports the discriminatory laws enshrined in Bill 21.

Bill 21 – which bans civil servants from wearing religious symbols at work, and the accompanying Bill 96, which would make French the only language needed to work in the province – were then a mainly a Quebec provincial issue.

The question, like the others, were vetted and approved by the organizers.

A fiery fallout ensued following Kurl’s question giving Blanchet’s Bloc Quebecois, a regional party that wants Quebec to be recognized as a nation, a much-needed wedge issue to portray themselves as the protectors of the people of Quebec.

During the debate, none of the political leaders on stage addressed the protestations by Blanchet.

The next morning, fearing the loss of votes in crucial Quebec ridings, Trudeau told a media scrum that the question regarding Quebec’s secularism law was “offensive.”

Similar sentiments were expressed by NDP leader Jagmeet Singh and then Conservative Leader Erin O’Toole. Trudeau later backtracked on his post-debate indignation at Kurl’s question saying he hasn’t “ruled out” federal intervention to challenge Bill 21 in court.

Anti-racism advocates described Trudeau’s backpedalling as “doublespeak” and criticized the leaders for not taking the opportunity during the debate to denounce the discriminatory laws – an issue that reverberated in the immigration-fuelled 41 federal parliamentary ridings, where visible minorities and New Canadians form the majority.

Errol Patrick Mendes, a professor of constitutional and international law at the University of Ottawa, who heads the Canadian chapter of the International Commission of Jurists said that the debate question on Bill 21 raised awareness of its discriminatory nature across Canada, especially in ridings where immigration and systemic racism are key issues.

Mustafa Farooq, chief executive officer of the National Council of Canadian Muslims, described the lost opportunity by the party leaders to unequivocally state on national television that Bill 21 is an act of systemic discrimination as “shameful.”

Balpreet Singh Boparai, Legal Counsel for World Sikh Organization of Canada (WSO) said it was “outrageous” that the party leaders would be more offended by a question on Bill 21 than the fact that this discriminatory law is driving people out of their homes and jobs.

“Their tiptoeing around this issue is politics at its worst and is hurting Canada and Canadians. This position is even more troubling in light of recent attacks on Muslims, as well as Turban-wearing Sikhs,” he said after the debate.

While most Canadians in the latest study (77.1%) said the moderator asked good questions, stakeholders interviewed by the LDC said the line of questioning from the moderator and journalists limited the ability of leaders to expound on their positions.

The same survey also showed that Canadians did not sufficiently learn about the parties' platforms during the debates, primarily because there was not enough time provided to leaders to debate each other.

“Stakeholders we consulted and analysis that was published criticized the format as being cluttered, restrictive and not allowing enough time for leaders to express themselves or to engage in meaningful exchanges,” the report said.

One participant in the CES focus group remarked, "It seemed like they're just rushing through everything, and no one is really getting answers."

The English-language debate received more negative media coverage and was marked by controversy over both format and moderation, concluded the report.

Among the recommendations made in the report include developing a simplified debate format and having a single moderator, rather than multiple journalists asking questions.

The Commission is also proposing that it selects the moderator, based on expert consultation. Currently, it is customary for media organizations involved in the debates to expect to have one of their journalists on stage.

Kurl, a former award-winning journalist and current president of the Angus Reid Institute, declined comment.

She has previously said: “I was asked to apologize for my question in the leaders’ debate. I stand by it unequivocally.”

Here is the question and exchange during the debate:

Shachi Kurl: “You deny that Quebec has problems with racism, yet you defend legislation such as Bills 96 and 21, which marginalize religious minorities, anglophones, and allophones. Quebec is recognized as a distinct society, but for those outside the province, please help them understand why your party also supports these discriminatory laws?”

Yves-François Blanchet: “The question seems to imply the answer you want. Those laws are not about discrimination. They are about the values of Quebec.”

Kurl: “And yet, religious minorities, sir, cannot progress if they wear their religious gear.”

Blanchet: “May I remind you, Quebec is not recognized as a distinct society. It’s been recognized as a nation on June 16 by the Parliament — 281 votes said that Quebec is a nation, and everybody here seems to agree with that. No more distinct society, which never had any meaning anyway.”

Kurl: “So, again, why the discriminatory laws and your support for it, sir?”

Blanchet:  “You may repeat as many times as you want that those are discriminatory laws. We are saying that those are legitimate laws that apply on Quebec territory, and there seems to be people around here who will share this point of view, which, again, is by itself for Quebec.”