This is what would get me kicked off the leaders’ planes.

“Someone appears to have misinformed Canada’s federal leaders about the purpose of elections,” this newspaper editorialized Saturday with wit and clarity that its targets have no hope of attaining. I fear it is in some sense untrue; you can’t argue with success and politicians’ toxic house blend of vacuous viciousness usually wins power for someone to misuse feebly. But since most candidates lose elections the same way, maybe evading questions is overestimated tactically as well as morally. At any rate I intend to ask some.

See, the Post editorial went on hopefully “In a democratic environment, elections are held to give voters a chance to assess candidates on the basis of their views, beliefs, proposals and credibility.” What? Not to bicker over who had a drink with Faith Goldy before it became obvious it wasn’t a very good idea?

Speaking of bad ideas, everyone remembers Kim Campbell’s election “gaffe” that “This is not the time, I don’t think, to get involved in a debate on very, very serious issues.” But between elections wasn’t good for her either, as her Twitter feed has lately reminded us. And she lost horribly.

So maybe thoughtful eloquence isn’t as useless as most politicians seem to think. And too many journalists, including those who accept, as the price of admission to the campaign plane, that instead of pressing the candidates they will report their hideous verbiage as actual speech. They make themselves complicit. And for what?

Before insulting anyone else let me congratulate debate organizers for finally inviting Maxime Bernier. And not only because I think he’s the only one even trying to talk sense, though I do. I thought it about the Libertarian party for years without believing they had earned a spot. But Bernier’s a serious presence, especially because on a remarkable number of issues he’s on one side and the four “major” parties busy hacking one another to rhetorical shreds are grouped tightly together on the other. (Five if you count the Bloc.)

If you doubt me, imagine what their leaders would mumble, if cornered, on the following questions that I’d insist on asking firmly and repeatedly with zero patience for evasions, bait-andswitch, impenetrable syntax or pre-chewed talking points:

❚ Is government in Canada too big? If so, what would you get rid of? If not, how would you pay for it?

❚ Why can’t we do health care the way the French or Swedes do instead of the way Cuba does? (Anyone who drags in “American-style health care” immediately has their mic cut off.)

❚ Is China friend, foe or simply a foreign entity pursuing its own national interest?

❚ Does Canada need capable armed forces? If so, what do we need and how much are you ready to spend? If not, how do we deal with a dangerous world?

❚ Is the world dangerous? If not, how do you explain the entire course of human history? If so, why aren’t you more worried?

❚ Why do we deliberately raise the price of food for the poor through supply management? (Maxime Bernier can just sit and smirk during this one. Andrew Scheer can’t.)

❚ Why is Canada the only democracy without any sort of abortion law (Vietnam also has none but even Cuba regulates late-term ones) when most Canadians want some restrictions?

❚ Does man-made climate change threaten civilization within the next decade or three? If so, how are we going to get rid of fossil fuels pronto and what will we replace them with? If not, why won’t you call global warming alarmism baloney?

❚ How should Canada’s national interest factor into our immigration policies? Is there a level of immigration that you believe would be beyond our capability to absorb?

❚ Do you really think Canadian Indigenous bands are separate nations? If so, when will you explicitly legislate that Canadian law does not apply on their territories and open embassies? If not, why do you pretend to? Won’t they be annoyed when they realize you’re lying again?

❚ Where do you get your ideas of right and wrong? If “the Catholic church,” why aren’t your policies remotely consistent with Church doctrine? If “from within,” how do you know you’re right? If “there’s no such thing as right and wrong,” how can we trust you to do what’s right?

❚ How large, of all that human hearts endure, is that part that laws and governments can cure?

There. I wouldn’t be the first person thrown off a campaign plane, possibly by other journalists. But with that list I can reasonably aspire to be the first to go out the door in mid-flight.

IS GOVERNMENT IN CANADA TOO BIG? — JOHN ROBSON

SPEAKING OF BAD IDEAS, EVERYONE REMEMBERS KIM CAMPBELL’S ELECTION ‘GAFFE.’

MAX MARTIN / POSTMEDIA NEWS Elona Ibraheem tries to get the attention of Justin Trudeau so he would answer her question at Blessed Sacrament Catholic Elementary School in London. John Robson also has some questions for the Liberal and other party leaders.