On Wednesday evening, leaders of the four main federal political parties squared off in Montreal for their first of two debates ahead of election day, April 28. Here’s what sharp-eyed analysts Brigitte Pellerin, Mohammed Adam, Abyssinia Abebe and Christina Spencer concluded about their appearance.
Who won the debate?
Brigitte Pellerin (Ottawa writer and Citizen columnist):
This was Liberal leader Mark Carney’s to lose, and he didn’t faceplant so he won. Francophones won, too; it’s rare that we are treated to a national debate where everyone’s command of French is good or better. The leaders even managed a few jokes in their second language, like NDP leader Jagmeet Singh’s jab at Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre’s comment on letting scientists, not politicians, run our nuclear energy program: “It’s the first time I’ve heard him say he’s in favour of scientists.” Priceless.
Mohammed Adam (Ottawa journalist and Citizen columnist):
Jagmeet Singh. He was aggressive without being rash. He had command of the facts of what Liberals and Conservatives governments had done. He went after Pierre Poilievre quite aggrresively, perhaps even more than he went after Carney. Taking on the moderator, though, was not his finest moment.
Mark Carney’s challenge was to show he can take the punches that would come as the front runner, hold his own in French and remain calm and stable. He was nervous at the beginning and his answers were not fully developed. He grew into the debate and largely held his own. He passed the French test.
Pierre Poilievre’s biggest challenge was authenticity. Would he be an attack dog or prime ministerial? He was calmer, perhaps too calm and didn’t fight back against Singh’s attacks. The old Poilievre would have hit back hard. He largely focused on his campaign promises and made efforts to tie Carney to Trudeau.
Christina Spencer (editorial pages editor, Ottawa Citizen):
There were two “layers” of winners. First, Bloc Québécois leader Yves-François Blanchet and NDP leader Jagmeet both had to do well in this debate: the first because the BQ has lost so much ground to the Liberals from the start of the race, the second because the NDP’s numbers across Canada have cratered. So both were aggressive and passionate. Of the two, Blanchet without a doubt performed better; he is a strong debater and was on his home turf.
The second “layer” was, of course, the battle between Pierre Poilievre and Mark Carney. Hampered by limited comfort with French, Carney inevitably came across haltingly even on topics where he is strong (economy, housing). Poilievre, who speaks French well, spent a bit too much time attacking the allegedly disastrous decade of Liberal government when he could have used his time better to explain his own platform. That said, he mostly rose about “attack dog” mode and of the two, managed to look more prime ministerial and more charming.
What, if anything, surprised you?
Pellerin:
In line with my previous answer, I was blown away by how the leaders were able to joke and banter in French without getting mean or worse, cringe. Poilievre’s retort during the “third link” discussion (the unspecified bridge or tunnel in Quebec City that nobody knows details about including colour, according to BQ leader Yves-François Blanchet), that “the third link will be blue” was pitch-perfect.
I also liked Blanchet’s remark, in the discussion of what American products leaders were personally boycotting, answering Poilievre’s statement that he was eating Albertan beef by saying “Quebec’s beef is pretty good, too.”
Adam:
Pierre Poilievre leaving his zingers and one-liners at the door.
Spencer:
I was surprised that the Green Party co-leader was dumped from the proceedings on the very morning of the debate. Whether the decision was fair, the timing made the debate commission look like a bit of a clown show. Add to that the fact that one segment of the debate was about energy and climate change. The party most associated with genuine concern for the environment was absent from the stage, which left four leaders arguing over why it takes so long to build pipelines and whether it will ever be possible to get everyone aboard.
Abebe:
One of the more striking moments came from BQ leader Blanchet, who pushed back against the “instrumentalization” of national identity for political gain. While his focus remained on Quebec’s distinct status within Confederation, his rejection of using identity as a political tool stood out among the leaders. Blanchet also hammered down on Carney for his positioning on building pipelines.
The tone of the debate was mostly calm, punctuated by occasional humour and light banter. One unexpectedly amusing moment came when candidates were asked what American products they are personally boycotting. Strawberries topped the list. Poilievre said he gets his beef locally and avoids American strawberries; Carney said alcohol; Blanchet and Singh revealed that they avoid American strawberries — with Singh proudly adding that he cooks at home.
Will this debate change anyone’s mind about who they’re voting for? Should it?
Pellerin:
Debates very rarely change anyone’s mind. I heard nothing during those two hours that would make someone do that. I submit we should listen to the leaders a little more closely and pay attention to the issues that aren’t directly related to our response to the American president’s attacks. For instance, Poilievre’s idea to bring in a national licensing system for health care professionals is one that every leader should support. The question of how we get to energy independence is also worth debating in detail and we should do that.
Adam:
No. For the most part, they all stuck to their plans and positions: tax cuts, pipelines, more housing … No one said anything revealing or dramatic or produced an “Aha” moment that will change minds. Yves-François Blanchet was only speaking to Quebec.
Abebe:
Overall, the debate was respectful and well-paced, with minimal interruptions. But I don’t believe it will significantly shift voter intention ahead of the April 28 vote.
While it was clear that Carney’s French skills were tested — especially compared to his opponents — that alone is unlikely to deter support among Quebecers. Still, with French as a key asset, both Poilievre and Blanchet seized the moment to make their case more forcefully to francophone voters.
While Carney attempted to distance himself from Trudeau’s legacy, emphasing that he just got to the position, we will see at the polls on April 28 whether voters will believe Carney can bring something different to Canada than Trudeau did.
Spencer:
In the end, much of the debate was about talking points. It might have weakened Carney somewhat in Quebec, with the “win” there going to Blanchet and, perhaps, a bit to Poilievre. The Liberal leader is probably happy that people stopped watching as soon as the hockey game began.
It did change my own mind on one point: I want Patrice Roy to moderate every future debate; he was great.
