Conservative candidates for the Conservative Party of Canada Scott Aichison, Roman Baber, Patrick Brown, Jean Charest, Leslin Lewis and Pierre Poalievre stood in the second official party debate on Wednesday night in Laval, Que.
Contrary to some expectations, given the resumption of talks on firearms laws following the mass shooting in Texas, there is no talk of gun control during the debate. Instead, the candidates sought to differentiate themselves in terms of inflation, official languages and foreign policy.
From several fiery exchanges of hot political files to different knowledge of the French language of the candidates, here are some key moments from the debate in French.
FIRE EXCHANGE 96 AND ACCOUNT 21
Not surprisingly, two controversial bills in Quebec, Bill 96 and Bill 21, engulfed much of Wednesday’s debate.
The first, which seeks to confirm that Quebec’s only official and common language is French and to ensure that French is used exclusively in the workplace and in municipalities, was adopted by the National Assembly on Tuesday. The latter banned several types of public workers, including teachers and police officers, from wearing religious symbols at work and was adopted in 2019.
Brown argues that Bill 96 violates Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He and Sharest accused Poilievre of changing his mind about Bill 21 based on who he was talking to, sometimes supporting him, sometimes opposing him.
Poilievre denied this, saying he had consistently opposed the law and would vote against it if it was tabled in the House of Commons.
Charest said the federal government should not take a neutral position on the issue.
Justice Minister David Lametti told reporters on Wednesday that Ottawa was ready to intervene in both cases when the bills reached the Supreme Court.
Lewis, meanwhile, said Bill 96 was a “bad” bill and “not a good approach”, but added that learning French was a personal pleasure and the next party leader should at least commit to learning it.
Baber and Aichison also expressed concern about the bills.
A LOT OF READING NOTES
Speaking of language, it was very clear that not all six candidates had the same command of French.
While Sharest and Poalievre were largely able to commit without looking down, scoring, and stating their position while facing the opponent they were talking to, it was common to see Aichison, Lewis, and Baber all night. consult with their notes during their answers and not get into so much of the open debate.
Brown found himself somewhere in the middle, lingering in the French exchange, while referring to his notes.
During the opening, Baber admitted that he lacked French skills, asking for some forgiveness.
He said he knew how important it was for the prime minister to be able to speak both English and French, and said he had taken French lessons almost every morning for the past three years.
Then, when the topic of official languages came up, Lewis said she was determined to continue her studies and that the process had so far been, according to the English translator, a “wonderful experience”.
MORE ATTACKS, ACCUSATIONS ON THE FLIP FLOP
Wednesday’s event was the last planned debate the party has planned for this leadership race, although it suggests another could be convened in the coming months.
Without taking any risks, the French-language debate saw that the candidates were taking advantage of the chances they could to differentiate themselves from their opponents. And this time there was no sad trombone to prevent the candidates from deviating from the issue. This led to sharper attacks by the candidates.
At various times during the night, both Charest and Brown made efforts to direct their criticism of Poalievre and his positions.
At one point, Brown accused him of reversing his position on the carbon tax, and then later suggested that his opposition to vaccine mandates had become his position only since he ran for leadership, saying that during the pandemic he tweeted thousands of times, but not about the mandates for a vaccine against COVID-19, which Poalievr denied.
Poilievre also failed to hold back, suggesting that Brown could not be trusted, citing his time as PC leader in Ontario and stubbornly following Charest’s record as prime minister in Quebec. Few, if any, of the evening’s attacks targeted the other three candidates on stage.
RELATIONS WITH CHINA AND BAN HUAWEI
The contenders also had the opportunity to share how they believe Canada should orient itself in its precarious relations with China, including whether they, like the liberal government, would ban Huawei from introducing 5G in Canada.
Brown took the lead, arguing that China’s clean energy exports and support for reducing emissions were one way to improve relations with the superpower, which he said had been torn since the days of the Harper government. This was another way to inflict a thin blow on Poalievre, a former prime minister’s cabinet minister.
Brown also accused Poilievre of being the only contender with the support of Huawei’s chief executive, targeting corporate vice president Alihan Welsh.
Poilievre, meanwhile, said Canada can both balance economic interests and defend our democratic values and principles when it confronts China. Similar to the English-language debate, he called on Charest to reveal how much he was paid to work as a consultant for Huawei after leaving provincial politics.
His response to the questions drew applause from the audience.
Charest responded to the blow, noting, as in the past, that he had not worked on any issue with the company that would jeopardize Canada’s national security interests. He also highlighted his involvement in helping release Canadians Michael Kovrig and Michael Spaver from detention in China.
Returning to Canada’s relations with China, Charest argues that Canada needs to completely overhaul its telecommunications security legislation.
He also suggested that Canada was not invited to join the new Indo-Pacific economic framework for prosperity due to its poor global position. “We are missing in action,” he said.
Add Comment