Maybe we should be grateful that agriculture was scarcely mentioned in last week’s televised party leaders debate.
Given the clamor and confusion of three or four people talking simultaneously, trying to drown each other out while still maintaining an image of dignity, who knows what hasty commitments might have been made?
The debate format lacked more than dignity. For the sake of imagery and sloganeering, it abandoned any hope of having an exchange of ideas.
There can be debates that allow a speaker more than two or three sentences to develop an idea, and similarly allow an opponent time to express a thoughtful rebuttal.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
Instead of treating Canadian voters as adults, television producers served up a chaotic jumble of sound bites. Well-run debates can be useful, town-hall meetings can be useful, and on occasion even questions from a panel of journalists can be useful. But mixing all those formats into one event was a disservice to the public.
It did enable Jean Charest to score an emotional point with his probably well-rehearsed line about wanting to turn a united Canada over to his children. But the format prevented a reasoned discussion about the implications of various national-unity policies.
The conciliatory “special status” approach, for example, has some appeal. But, as a recent book by former premier Jacques Parizeau revealed, it has potential weaknesses as well.
At the time of the last referendum, Parizeau was at least toying with the idea of an immediate unilateral declaration of independence, in hopes of getting quick recognition by France.
So should the national government jump into the hard-line approach, decreeing that unilateral separation will never be tolerated and warning that perhaps only a portion of the province might be allowed to go?
According to polls released last week, that could win the agreement of a large majority of Canadians.
It could also lead to civil war in certain circumstances.
Exploring such important issues requires much more thought than Canadians were shown last week.
But the fault is not all, or even largely, due to those who control today’s television programming.
Ultimately, the party leaders themselves could have decided their rules of engagement. They could have insisted on a format geared more toward explaining ideas than creating images.
Did they collectively decline that opportunity out of contempt for Canadian voters? Or is it that there isn’t enough substance behind most of their positions to support a real debate?
