Mark Carney needed to escape this debate unbloodied — and even with a smile, Pierre Poilievre couldn't land a knockout blow

Liberal Leader Mark Carney walked away unscathed from his first faceoff with his opponents during the French-language leaders’ debate in Montreal. Carney, who has a huge lead in public opinion polls in Quebec, had the most to lose. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre , NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh and Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet are all nipping at his support, notably in Quebec where their path to growth rests with taking him down a few pegs.

But none succeeded Wednesday night. While Poilievre tried his best to tie Carney to former Liberal prime minister Justin Trudeau’s record, accusing him of sharing the same policies and calling for change, Carney was ready with his answers. “I just got here,” he told viewers watching at home.



“Mr. Poilievre is not Justin Trudeau, nor am I. This election, the question [is] who will succeed? And who will face Mr.

Trump?” Both Poilievre and Carney tried to wrestle the debate back to their preferred choice for the ballot question — the Conservatives hoping a desire for change drives the vote, the Liberals hoping leadership and who can best handle the chaos from the White House guides the electorate — neither really succeeded. Trump did not dominate the debate. Instead, the party leaders exchanged on immigration, climate change, pipelines, Gaza, spending and provincial transfers, and commitments to stand up for the protection of the French language, Quebec culture, and support for supply management.

With none of the parties having released their fully costed platforms — a worrying trend and unusual departure from standard practice — there was little new for the leaders and the moderator to poke at. Carney was helped by Blanchet and Singh, who seems to dislike Poilievre just as much, if not more, than the Liberal leader. They lobbed their own attacks.

Singh accused Poilievre of “disgustingly ...

promoting hatred.” Blanchet mocked Poilievre for sloganeering and saying nothing: “There is no social acceptability for the status quo? When it rains, it is not sunny. This means nothing.

” Leader Jagmeet Singh and Mark Carney clash in an exchange about terming the situation in Gaza as a genocide. There were attempts, notably by the NDP leader, to land a few blows on Carney. Singh tried to squeeze him on fossil fuel subsidies but instead got the Liberal leader to confirm that he is opposed to them.

When Singh tried to bring up Carney’s past with Brookfield Asset Management, accusing the Liberal leader of profiting from the housing crisis, there was no pickup. There was remarkably little pickup during the debate on any criticisms of Carney — notably the accusations Poilievre has frequently made about the Liberal leader’s ethics, probing questions about his potential conflict of interest, or Brookfield’s use of tax havens. Perhaps Poilievre was counselled that Quebecers don’t like it when leaders fight, that he should smile and use his stage time to present his plan, rather than let loose the attack dog that many viewers would recognize from question period in the House of Commons.

Overall, it was a polite debate, with little spice. Carney, who is known for not tolerating fools, appeared at some moments to be visibly disagreeing with his rivals but biting his lip. But as the evening wore on, he interjected more often: “That’s not correct.

Your numbers are not good.” Singh complained the moderator was cutting him off every time he wanted to talk about health care. Poilievre made a pitch to reverse the Liberals’ electric vehicle mandate by appealing to truck drivers in rural areas: “You can keep your car and we will build highways.

” But his desire to build pipelines without Quebec’s approval or support from Indigenous groups may not have landed with his audience. Carney benefited from low expectations. His French comprehension seemed a lot better than it did in previous Radio-Canada interviews — on the public broadcaster’s ‘Cinq chefs, une élection’ program or even last Sunday’s ‘Tout le monde en parle,’ a popular talk show that gets nearly a million viewers.

He made two small errors — not elaborating fully when he said “there are limits” in the context of provincial transfers, and when he did not explain his ties to the “Century Initiative,” a call for Canada to increase its population to 100 million, after Poilievre and Blanchet raised it. Le Journal de Montréal has done big takes on the initiative, raising the prospect that Quebec’s weight in the federation would diminish and the viability of the French language would be threatened if Canada’s population increased so much. Mark Carney said he was concerned about how Pierre Poilievre plans on using the notwithstanding clause.

The oddest exchange of the debate came at the end, when Carney suggested that Poilievre’s support for using the Constitution’s notwithstanding clause — the Conservative leader has said he’ll invoked it to ensure those convicted of multiple murders spend their lifetimes incarcerated — could lead to abortion rights being affected in Canada. Perhaps the leaders will get a chance to pick up on that Thursday, when they face off again in English. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request.

There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time.

By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .

.