Who won the English-language leaders’ debate?

On Thursday evening, leaders of the four main federal political parties squared off in Montreal for their second of two debates ahead of election day, April 28. Here’s what Edmonton Postmedia columnists Lorne Gunter, Keith Gerein and David Staples concluded about their performance.

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

Try refreshing your browser, or
tap here to see other videos from our team.

Who won the debate?

Lorne Gunter: There was no clear winner, but clear winners in debates are rare. So which leader did himself the most good? I would say Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre and Bloc Leader Yves-Francois Blanchet came off looking the best. Poilievre avoided coming off as smarmy, which he can sometimes. And he made some excellent points, for instance about how increasing Canadian energy exports to help developing countries switch from generating electricity with coal would lead to rapid emission reductions.

Article content

Third-best would be Mark Carney, who came across as moderate, but a little too wonky and sometimes got caught in a maze of his own overthinking.

In last place was Jagmeet Singh who too often resembled an overly earnest sophomore or a candidate for local president of his civil service union.

A word about the participation of the Bloc and the Greens. I don’t care that the inconsequential Greens were excluded from the debates. I didn’t miss their preachy irrelevance. However, the debate commission uninvited the Greens because the party is running just 232 candidates across the country (out of 343 ridings). Meanwhile, the Bloc Quebecois is running just 78 candidates and in only one province. So shouldn’t Bloc Leader Yves-Francois Blanchet have been uninvited from the English debate, too?

Keith Gerein: I give a slight edge to Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre. Despite some over-the-top rhetoric at a few moments, he largely managed to avoid the dislikeable attack-dog persona that has hampered him. I thought Poilievre was particularly effective in his criticisms of the Liberal record on crime and public safety, and in his response to Liberal Leader Mark Carney’s question on why he hasn’t applied for his security clearance. That said, I’m doubtful it was enough to change the dynamics of the election.

Article content

With all three Opposition leaders going after Carney relentlessly and from all sides of the political spectrum, it was near impossible for him to come out with a win. But despite some awkward and policy-wonkish responses at times — not to mention avoidance of certain questions — I think he held up relatively well and made the case effectively, to Poilievre’s chagrin, that he is not the same as former prime minister Justin Trudeau.

David Staples: Winners: Poilievre and Blanchet. Losers: Carney and Singh.

Carney shot up in polls due to fear of Donald Trump, but much of the energy has drained from that issue and the debate rarely touched on Trump. It was about Liberal policies that many Canadians have come to hate on crime, inflation, immigration and energy, where Poilievre is strong. Poilievre also showed a caring and emotional side in his closing statements, which will soften his attack-dog image. Blanchet came across as a smart and reasonable defender of Quebec, which could give Carney trouble there.

Article content

Article content

Carney? He’s not Justin Trudeau, as he said repeatedly in the debate. He’s much smarter and more reasonable. But as Poilievre hammered home repeatedly, he was Trudeau’s economic advisor, he is surrounded by Trudeau’s old advisors and he’s pushing many of Trudeau’s old policies. Singh was little but a distraction and a pest in the debate with his constant interruptions of the other candidates. He came off as an embarrassment. This will hurt the NDP vote, but assist Carney’s Liberals, who will pull more support from the NDP well of voters.

What did you learn that surprised you?

Lorne Gunter: Mark Carney confused Keystone XL with the Trans Mountain Expansion pipeline claiming that a large chunk of Ottawa’s subsidies to oil and gas companies went to paying for Keystone, which hasn’t been completed. Huh!?

It surprised me that Carney has been prime minister for just a month. He mentioned that four times. Oops, sorry. I already knew that. And so did most Canadians. Sorry, sir, you don’t get away from taking responsibility for the lost Liberal decade just by reminding voters you’ve only been in the job a month.

Article content

I was truly surprised that when the topic was Poilievre’s promise to use the Constitution’s notwithstanding clause to keep mass murderers in prison for life, Carney defaulted to some airy defence of the courts’ prominence over Parliament.

Keith Gerein: The most surprising thing that arose during the debate was news that the traditional follow-up media scrums with the leaders had been cancelled due to security concerns. The debate itself offered little different from what we’ve heard in recent weeks. I suppose I was a little surprised at how often NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh went after Poilievre and how often he interrupted his Conservative counterpart. Logic would suggest he might have been better served using more of that energy against Carney. I was also not expecting Bloc Quebecois Leader Yves-François Blanchet to suggest that Carney should avoid staying “alone in your little kingdom” after the election, and instead meet with the other party leaders to help plan Canada’s next big moves. If Blanchet thinks those four can agree on much, he’s dreaming.

Article content

David Staples: The big surprise? That Blanchet is such an able leader for Quebeckers.  Yes, he hates on oil and gas every chance he gets, so he’s poison for Canada’s economic well-being, but he’s a strong advocate for his home province.

Was there a turnaround moment, a knockout punch in this sparring match?

Lorne Gunter: Short answer: No. The last true knockout punch in a Canadian election debate was Brian Mulroney on John Turner in 1984. When Turner claimed he had no choice but to make a rash of patronage appointments left for him by Pierre Trudeau, Mulroney said, “You had an option, sir, to say ‘no,’ and you chose to say ‘yes’,” that sealed the election for the Progressive Conservatives.

Nothing like that happened on Thursday night.

Blanchet got off the best line. Singh was nagging Carney about subsidies to oil companies and why the Liberals had approved an alleged $40 billion of them last year. Blanchet matter-of-factly said to the NDP Leader, “You voted for it.”

Article content

If you were watching really closely, Carney knocked himself in the head a couple of times. The most memorable was when he said on the economy, “My approach is fundamentally different (from Justin Trudeau’s) because we need a fundamentally different approach.” He offered no elaboration.

Keith Gerein: There was no real breakthrough or pivot point that this debate will be remembered for — few debates have these anymore —-though there were a handful of good lines from Carney. This included his remark to Poilievre that he does “his own talking points, thank you very much,” and his reminder that “they are both gone” in reference to Poilievre’s clear desire to be fighting the campaign against Trudeau and the carbon tax. I also liked Carney’s line on how Canada should respond U.S. tariffs: “We can give ourselves so much more than Donald Trump can ever take away.”

David Staples: Yes. When Poilievre got emotional speaking about the pain of Canadians he’s met on the campaign trail, he came across to millions of Canadians in a way they’ve not seen before. He’s been fierce and negative for years in Opposition, but to win this election he’s got to assure Canadians he’ll stand up for them with both a head and a heart. In that moment, he went a long way in showing he’s got that side to himself. Undecided voters needed that assurance.

Article content

Carney was OK, but Poilievre gave one of the best debate performances I’ve seen.

Letters welcome

Article content