On Thursday evening, leaders of the four main federal political parties squared off in their second debate, this one in English. Here’s what sharp-eyed analysts Brigitte Pellerin, Mohammed Adam, Randall Denley and Christina Spencer thought. Election day is April 28.
Who won the debate?
Mohammed Adam (columnist): I don’t know about winning. But Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre was effective in delivering his message, which was about a decade of Liberal failure.
Right from the opening bell, he attacked the Liberal record. He had to bring down Liberal leader Mark Carney, the man who right now is eating his lunch, and he went after him hard, constantly referring to the “lost Liberal decade.” Poilievre effectively hammered home his core message about the high cost of living, affordability, housing, immigration and crime.
More than during the French-language debate, Carney was the focus of attack by all the others. He was at some disadvantage because as they all piled on, they constantly interrupted him. But he held his own and was much better than in the first debate.
The ballot box question for most Canadians remains who is best qualified in troubled times to lead the country, and Carney tried to bring his answers back to that issue. But he showed his inexperience by allowing himself to be sidetracked by Singh’s questions. In contrast, Poilievre ignored them, sticking to his talking points. Carney steered two countries through economic turmoil, and he brought the discussion back there towards the end. It is what he should have done.
Randall Denley (columnist):
This was really a two-person debate. Bloc Québécois leader Yves-François Blanchet is not a contender to become prime minister, just a special pleader for Quebec. NDP leader Jagmeet Singh is on his Dead Man Walking Farewell Tour, although he showed some life Thursday night. Liberal Mark Carney was calm to a fault. Does the man have any passion at all? On the plus side, Carney is too mild to create the visceral dislike Canadians felt for his predecessor.
I give this one to Conservative Pierre Poilievre for effectively critiquing the Liberal record while clearly explaining what he would do, and why, while showing the passion Carney lacks.
Christina Spencer (Citizen editorial pages editor):
Liberal leader Mark Carney won, not because he was the strongest debater but because he held his own among more experienced public debaters. He didn’t lose, didn’t get too badly pummelled by his opponents and looked thoughtful. Most Canadians haven’t seen a lot of him, and I’m guessing they would have felt just fine with what they witnessed in this debate.
Brigitte Pellerin (Ottawa writer and columnist)
: Who won? Not us, that’s for sure. I’m afraid we’ve reached the point of diminishing returns when it comes to leaders’ debates. They’ve all figured out how to turn whatever is asked into the perfect excuse to repeat their prepared lines, which we already know. I’m willing to bet viewership dropped significantly once we were done with the Trump segment, during which nobody said anything new. I was sorely tempted to turn off the TV and go do something more rewarding with my time, like refolding my fitted sheets.
What, if anything, surprised you?
Denley:
Perhaps it’s not a surprise, but Jagmeet Singh missed the mark in this debate. His opportunity, if he has one, is to seize the progressive mantle that the Liberals are ceding under Carney. Singh talked about health care and some of the policies he forced on the former Liberal government, but he didn’t make a clear appeal to progressive voters, who make up the majority of Canadians. His voters are fleeing to the Liberals and Singh did little to stop them.
Pellerin:
I was pleasantly surprised by Pierre Poilievre talking directly to young people during the housing affordability segment. Nobody talks to young people, which is weird given how often we complain that they’re unengaged and don’t vote. Maybe talking to them might help?
I was also impressed that Mark Carney mostly managed to keep his temper in check, given how often he’s been snippy in the campaign so far when faced with questions he didn’t like.
Spencer:
I was generally impressed by Poilievre’s restraint. He had to look prime ministerial and did a reasonable job of it. He’s good at making his points succinctly (though the “for a change” slogan got a bit grating).
Jagmeet Singh’s mosquito impression — buzzing around everyone with energetic interruptions and remarks — was a bit surprising. He knew he had to score points in this debate and he sure tried hard. But calm down, man.
But mostly, there was civility on that stage and yes, that surprised me: What a contrast to Question Period!
Adam:
The moderator. Steve Paikin has a good reputation, but he did not meet the bar set Patrice Roy in the French debate.
Do you think this debate will change anyone’s mind about who they’re voting for? Should it?
Denley:
The conventional wisdom is that debates don’t matter. I disagree. The point is for leaders to close the deal with those who already back them while persuading people who are sitting on the fence. This was English-speaking Canadians’ chance to see Carney and Poilievre take on each other one-to-one. Far more useful and interesting than clips and political ads. Both Carney and Poilievre showed who they are and they did it mostly in a civil fashion. A nice contrast to what’s happening in the U.S.
Pellerin:
No changed minds, but we may have gained a slightly sharper understanding of who the leaders truly are. Carney telling Poilievre that while the latter had spent years fighting the carbon tax and Justin Trudeau, both are now gone – that was a good zinger but it showed condescension. Poilievre’s comment that multiple murderers should only come out of jail “in a box” was needlessly harsh and dehumanizing. Jagmeet Singh was interrupting others way too often and the BQ’s Blanchet made it very clear how much we all disappoint him.
Adam:
Hard to say. Poilievre was forceful and made his campaign points. But he needed a knockout punch to bring frontrunner Carney down. Or hope Carney would make a disqualifying gaffe. Neither happened. Carney was bruised, but not battered. Poilievre’s hope going into the last week of the election has to be that the ballot question changes in the minds of Canadians. If it remains Trump, advantage Carney. If not, it will go down to the wire.
Spencer:
This debate will reassure those already committed to Poilievre and Carney. A bit of soft Liberal support will probably get firmer. I don’t think it will shift votes to the NDP, in spite of a spirited attempt by Singh. Blanchet, well, he had only one audience and those who like him will vote for him.
Brigitte Pellerin is an Ottawa writer and columnist; Mohammed Adam is an Ottawa journalist and commentator; Randall Denley is a columnist and former Ontario PC candidate; Christina Spencer is the Citizen’s editorial pages editor.
Related
