The federal leaders’ debate was an expectedly dull yet informative event

On April 17, the English-language federal leaders’ debate was held in the atrium of the Maison de Radio-Canada in Montréal and moderated by TVO’s Steve Paikin. The French debate was held the day before in the exact same location. 

The four participants in both debates were Mark Carney of the Liberals, Pierre Poilievre of the Conservatives, Jagmeet Singh of the NDP, and Yves-François Blanchet of the Bloc Québécois. The Green Party’s invitation was rescinded while the People’s Party was not invited. 

The topics of discussion were tariffs and threats to Canada, affordability and the cost of living, public safety and security, energy and climate, and “leading in a crisis.”

The debate was nothing exciting. No brash personalities were on display. No audacity aside from the frequent budging into others’ (mostly Carney’s and Poilievre’s) speaking times. 

Considering that a brash and audacious U.S. has been a source of anxiety for many Canadians, there is a somewhat understandable appetite for a more milquetoast and perceivably stable head of government to counteract. Although President Donald Trump was not as major of a factor in the proceedings as he might have been earlier this month. 

Interestingly, Singh mainly targeted Poilievre while Blanchet was on Carney’s tail. All were obviously gunning after Carney by virtue of him being the sitting prime minister and the chief inheritor of Justin Trudeau’s legacy. 

Carney stuck to a moderate agenda and spoke evenly throughout — technically sound with no flair to speak of. 

Poilievre was the toughest on hammering home that the Liberals have been in power for a decade now, and that they (and Trudeau) are at fault for everything that is wrong. He also said that Carney will not be the solution because he is not different enough from Trudeau. That being said, Trudeau was (thankfully) not incessantly name-dropped. 

Singh’s strategy was to set himself up as the progressive voice in the room — the same tactic he has deployed in the last two elections to diminishing results. 

Blanchet did what was to be expected as the Bloc’s leader — draw attention to Québécois interests as they pertain to national affairs. With polls suggesting that the latter two are losing support to the Liberals, Singh and Blanchet were more likely working to promote and justify their respective parties’ presence whilst mitigating the incoming seat losses.

Everybody stuck to their platforms and refrained from anything too impudent unless it was a chance at jabbing a target. I will not deny the informative nature of the debate as the leaders laid out their ideas and tested themselves against the scrutiny of their opponents. 

Unlike U.S. presidential debates, Canadian leaders’ debates lack a history of dramatic or memorable moments, except for Brian Mulroney’s “You had an option, sir” in 1984. Therefore, this debate must be viewed as a learning tool rather than as memetic moments that can be chopped up and posted on social media for engagement.

To summarize, Carney did not drop the ball, Poilievre did not stray from his pre-established agenda, Singh did not change tactics, and Blanchet did not forget Quebec. The Liberal lead does not look like it will be shaken too badly by this debate, but it will take a while before any perceptible changes begin to show up. 

Perhaps the performances did not reflect the same sense of direness that was present when the writ dropped, but that ought to have been expected since Trump’s initial threat to national sovereignty has cooled off. Leaders have since made way for a reframed question of achieving economic independence and the expansion of global trade partnerships.