KINSELLA: Opponents swing and mostly miss against Carney in leaders' debate

Article content

Mark Carney gave an uneasy smile.

Fifteen minutes in, it was a pile-on, and Carney was at the bottom of it.

The Liberal Prime Minister looked a bit tired, and he displayed a bit of exasperation. It mattered, too: the experts say that most viewers watch only the first 20 minutes or so of a political debate, and then they change the channel to The White Lotus.

But Carney was responding to attacks in English, and the first segment was about the economy, too: at that point, the Grit boss was figuratively swaddled in a warm blanket, in his total comfort zone. As a former central bank governor, it was a world Carney knew the best. It showed.

In that first segment, Carney fired off some quotable quotes: “We have to have control of our economic destiny.” And: “We can give ourselves more than Donald Trump can ever take away.”

You could almost picture those words slapped onto a Liberal campaign ad — and, actually, you have: Carney has uttered variations on those themes over and over in this election contest. So, too, his favourite defensive line when under siege: “My record is a month long as Prime Minister.” He says that a lot. And: “Catalytic.” He invokes Trump’s name a ton, too. And: “Three points.” He loves his three points.

It’s easy to forget that Carney has been in the big leagues of politics for only a few months. Whether you like him or not, he jumped into the deep end of the pool, and he didn’t drown. Carney’s hidden superpower, we’ve learned, is to be boring and pedantic, and to somehow exceed expectations.

He had a few good lines. When Pierre Poilievre likened him to the departed Justin Trudeau (yet again), and mentioned the despised carbon tax (yet again), Carney smiled. He was ready: “They’re both gone,” Carney said, adding: “I’m a very different person than Justin Trudeau.”

And Carney was the first to raise the issue of antisemitic attacks on Jewish Canadians, saying it “pained” him. It was a shame that moderator Steve Paikin cut him off, at that point. At the debate’s end, though, he got another chance, and rightly said the hostages need to be returned, and pointed out the looming Iranian, Russian and terrorist threats.

The newly-minted Prime Minister had his share of weaker moments. Carney looked very uncertain on the Charter and crime, and he had lots of long, long pauses. Then he said this: “The Charter exists to protect Canadians from people like us on this stage.” Um, what?

Poilievre, for his part, again showed everyone that he had been prepped well for the biggest night of his political career. He spoke directly to camera. He kept his cool. He used his hands and lots of emphasis. He smiled. (Like Carney, he looked tired, however.)

Poilievre got off some pretty good shots at his main opponent, too. He pointed out that Justin Trudeau’s senior advisers had written up Carney’s talking points, which Carney gamely denied — while smiling, like a kid caught with his hand in the talking points cookie jar.

On guns, and gun control, Poilievre fired off a great line: “Liberals want to protect turkeys from hunters.” On energy and resource development, Poilievre was at ease, and persuasive. (If only his opponents would listen to him.) Same with Israel and Hamas: Poilievre shone brightest in the final debate discussion.

In the law and order segment, Poilievre was clearly most comfortable, even if he’s wrong to be threatening to use the notwithstanding clause to get his way. “Mr. Carney, Canadians deserve to live their lives in safety and security,” he said, in a direct hit on his opponent.

Poilievre was emotional and powerful at the very end. His debate performance will help him in the polls. But it probably won’t be enough.

Jagmeet Singh, for his part, was frantic: he kept interrupting, or trying to interrupt, the other three leaders, over and over and over. Perhaps he was trying to make up for his microphone being cut off (briefly) in the French-language debate. Whatever the reason, he was the most irritating participant in Thursday night’s debate. It’ll hurt his prospects.

It probably doesn’t really matter: Thursday’s broadcast will be the last time most of us hear from Singh — until election night, that is, when he concedes that his NDP has been reduced to a rump in the House of Commons, and he’s (almost certainly) lost his own seat.

The Bloc leader, Yves-Francois Blanchet, for his part, was the annoying guy during the French debate. In English, however, speaking in a language that was not his first, he was oddly charming. I wager some English-speaking voters wondered why they can’t vote for him. (Hint: he’s a separatist.) Blanchet did surprisingly well.

But after all that — after two pivotal hours — the result of the English-language debate was much like the French-language debate. Which is this: the opposition leaders needed to knock out Mark Carney, the frontrunner. They tried, often. But they failed.

The election’s outcome feels set in stone, now. And, somewhere, Mark Carney is still smiling.

RECOMMENDED VIDEO

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

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

Play Video