By Ray Rivers
April 18th, 2025
BURLINGTON, ON
The political debates in Canada’s federal election this year are over. As is often the case, there were no winners in either of the two debates held in each of the country’s official languages. If anything, Mark Carney as the front runner deserves credit for largely surviving the assault in both debates by the other three political leaders.
Prime Minister Mark Carney
Carney is not your typical politician. He is an academic and an intellectual with an impressive resume of achievements. And, he’s clearly not very comfortable in the political bun fight. He was barraged by attacks from all sides and seemed overwhelmed at times. But he did maintain his cool, added some occasional humour and brought forward methodical rebuttal arguments.
Carney appeared to become defensive about his decision to eliminate the consumer carbon tax and as he discussed his time as Brookfield CEO. Even his gotcha question about Poilievre’s security clearance didn’t really work for him. And Carney, the economist, failed to admonish Poilievre for his erroneous assumptions on the cause of our post pandemic inflation.
Unlike the other leaders, particularly Poilievre, he was courteous and polite with his responses, rarely, if ever, interrupting someone speaking. Clearly he is more used to the etiquette of the board room than to cut-throat political theatre. Still, he survived the onslaught and methodically made some good points, though he delivered no serious blows and failed to decimate his opponents. In this high stakes poker game we call politics he left a lot of money on the table.
Pierre Poilievre used almost all of his time to effectively regurgitate his well rehearsed stump speech. There was really nothing new in anything he said but he repeated it well. Perhaps he is waiting for his actual platform to be released. However, he reached beyond logic to defend his decision to become the first federal leader to want to invoke the notwithstanding clause.
It all became very annoying, the robotic repetition of his familiar attack dog routine – the lost Liberal decade and how he’d bury the Impact Assessment Act, Bill 69, which actually hasn’t stopped any pipelines yet. There were times when I wanted to turn off the volume or fast forward the tape just to escape the monotony.
Also, at times it seems he’d forgotten that he wasn’t running against Justin Trudeau. Perhaps having demolished Trudeau’s character he was now hoping to tar Carney with the same brush. And there was this certain air of desperation – as if this was all he had in his quiver. It seems that in this crisis all he is offering are tax cuts, building more pipelines and exporting more oil.
Jagmeet Singh was passionate and seemed sincere for the most part.
Jagmeet Singh was passionate and seemed sincere for the most part. He jumped in several times to defend Carney on matters of fact, something admirable for a political leader hoping to actually win voters back from the Liberals. But he levelled his own attacks as well. His messages hadn’t really changed since the last election – save health care and do something about affordability. It was as if this were just another election in normal times for him.
Singh’s party can lay legitimate claim to publicly supported health care, and more recently dental, child and pharmaceutical care. Though he was always a junior partner to the Liberals in implementing these social programs. If he had an industrial policy he was hiding it. This may well be his last federal debate as he is fighting for his political life, and that of his party in this election.
Bloc leader Yves-François Blanchet
Bloc leader Blanchet was delightful at times in both debates and he made his points well. But he is a parochial regional leader whose ultimate goal is removing Quebec from Canada. He has admitted he’ll never be prime minister and doesn’t even like to speak English in Montreal. The debate commission has come under a lot of criticism for excluding the Greens and Peoples parties. That they continue to give air time to a regional separatist party is almost absurd, though some would say it is just the Canadian way.
The biggest criticism goes to the moderator of the English debate, Steve Paikin. This was supposed to be a debate, not a shouting match. Yet he let Singh and Poilievre cross talk, over Carney’s and over each others’ answers. Excuse me but I wanted to hear what each of the candidates had to say.
The moderator of the French language debate was much better at keeping the debate under control and much fairer to all the debaters. He actually cut off Singh’s mic at one point after Singh went off topic and started ranting about health care funding. Paikin noted that he’d watched the debate in French, but he clearly hadn’t learned anything from it.
Also, Paikin’s time clock for each leader didn’t add up. Some leaders seemed to have far more speaking time than others. Poilievre got the best camera shots, often avoiding the obtrusive podium in the picture. It’s almost like the CBC had forgotten that he’s promising to shut down the network and fire them all if he wins.
Pierre Poilievre responding to Mark Carney
In the end, this election is a contest between the two traditional political parties. Conservative leader Poilievre came across as a smooth talking career politician with little or no business or management experience and with a plan for Canada’s future built on tax cuts and exporting more oil and gas.
Mark Carney on the other hand came across as a rather lacklustre debater who nevertheless comes with a proven record in international negotiation, impressive top level business and public service experience, and a visionary perspective for rebuilding all of Canada. That’s how I saw it anyway.
Ray Rivers, a Gazette Contributing Editor, writes regularly applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was once a candidate for provincial office in Burlington. He was the founder of the Burlington citizen committee on sustainability at a time when climate warming was a hotly debated subject. Ray has a post graduate degree in economics that he earned at the University of Ottawa. Tweet @rayzrivers
Background:
It was a blood bath folks, this will mark the end of Mark “Julius Ceasar” Carney – he was murdered on stage.
All you needed to do was watch the last 10 minutes. The question Poilievre asked Carney about affordability, and requesting Carney to apologize to all the Canadians affected by his inflationary policies that caused one of the biggest food affordability crisis Canada has seen – Carney’s answer was simple deflection, he had no answer.
Then the utter incompetence of the Liberal party when Carney asked Poilievre about security clearance – how this question made its way up through the Liberal communications team is mind boggling. Poilievre responded that 1. He had his clearance under the Harper government. 2. If he took the bait of security clearance under the Liberal government he would not be able to talk about issues like foreign interference, 3. Tom Mulclair, former leader of the NDP agreed that he would never taken the Liberals gag order of security clearance.
Poilievre unloaded on Carney with the knock out punch calling him out for not firing his candidate in Markham with clear ties to the Chinese CP who threatened a Canadian candidate, and calling out his $250,000 loan to Brookfield from the CCP.
Finally, all you have to do is watch the reaction of Terry Guillon, the Senior Lead Media person for Mark Carney’s team, leave the Radio Canada building in Montreal. He was clearly in a very foul mood, not the reaction from someone who felt his “horse” did well in the debate.
And, the polls are already starting to swing, Mainstreet Research is showing Poilievre 3 points ahead of Carney, recognizing the polls under estimate Conservative support.
Carney is clearly not the guy to deal with Trump, that was on full display Thursday night.
PPCon does not get my vote, whatever he says, and in this new global context of Trump, Carney is as I said the most needed calibre, most competent, authoritative and most supportable to me. I have voted for all Parties at all levels of Government during my life.
The only blood bath was something like your style of attack here, a know it all description of everything, and an always total one-sided debate outcomes. It was a know it all and mean-toned voice, exaggerated perspective, having no room for my opinion.
Based of course on a Carney attack, used to then write out a lot of political policy opinions, generally blaming the Liberal policies for everything, with no evidence except coincidence and circumstance, without any facts to show their basis in the concrete facts of the issue and policy. Things like: simple deflection, utter incompetence’
I worked in economics and environmental matters for 33 years, so I know you don’t understand what you are talking about in climate, changes in climate evidence, the economics of the gas tax, and the global agreements set up to try to deal with it. And I see no mention of the science of its to date policy effectiveness. You have your own obsession with money.
I misspoke about PPCon “talking too much”, when what the context I meant was I got tired of hearing for the last year his TV commercials, over and over, every 10 minutes, the same thing, for weeks, that you commented on here. And now, it’s the same thing, some different words, and Carney is now the target and the empty slogans are, “for a change”; and “common sense”.
I too found the last 10 minutes most interesting in that none of the opposing parties could keep their mouths shut talking loudly, often together, over Carney, in his talk time, answering their own questions. That will get you no where, with Trump.
The idea that Carney is clearly not the guy to deal with Trump, is based on the least thought of anything you wrote here. Based on credentials, manners, and diplomacy skills to manage Trump, he is the only one to deal with him.
As I see it, the Liberal media guy would have to be pissed at this behaviour where Carney gets a minute or so, and once he gets to the meat, they all interrupt and together in sequence answer their own questions, and use up a lot of time remaining for Carney, keeping up a loud background noise, and the moderator does nothing.
It was really aggravating and just not fair. Carney was a gentleman about it.
If I were greedy and wanted to burden future generations with debt I would vote Liberal. We own rental properties and other assets that have done very well under the Liberal’s inflationary policies – this was highly predictable.
Carney’s policies are hyperinflationary which will serve us well, but those inflationary policies are not what is best for the country and extremely damaging for future generations.
Is the last 10 years not clear evidence of this?
Editor’s note: The last ten years are clear evidence of some pretty lousy political management – but Mark Carney didn’t do any of it. And if you think Poilievre is going to do any better than Carney – let me know what you’re smoking and where you get it – I’d like some of it
Property values have pretty much increased everywhere in the last 10 years, Liberal policy or not. You always seem to blame Trudeau for everything, and only by association. In Ontario, Ford has tried with inflationary policies and failed completely – he is in charge of your rental property inflation.
Everyone was hit by Covid, and you have always blamed Liberals. We are living in the still present traces of the economic damage of that. Inflation is part of that. Every politician alive lived through the last 10 years, except Carney. Explain that without blaming him. Read Pepper again.
And how is Carney hyper-inflationary? And how will that serve us well?
This would likely collapse the economy, and your money. This is more clear evidence that you don’t know what you are talking about – I see no evidence of what you speak except words. How do you call the lack of evidence, evidence?
Moving forward, from the latest threat mutterings from Trump regarding Autos and Canada, will require unprecedented budget needs, and debt quantity, along with political-economic planning scope and flexibility needed, which is what I see in Carney competence and policy scope.
We live now in a radically changed contextual fix we are in, and it will be the same whatever the election outcome. The needed program money liquidity, and gross bulk financial flexibility, will be much the same situation . The vexing problem, is “what to do”?
I ask, who appears to be more competent and qualified to deal with Trump’s want to change the global economy. So far, the PPCon platform is based on “business as usual” government election ploy of promised personal tax cuts, select budget cuts, cuts to industry gas tax cuts – the usual cut taxes and spending, some on infrastructure.
However, despite talk, it is still a hefty left over need for spending and debt. It will be difficult times with Trump after Canada, and/or a changing context of Tariff levels and uncertainty surprises. There is no visible competency or experience reason for respect for PPCon, from Trump, and for Canada.
On the side of Carney, we have his depth of multinational central bank leadership in Canada and the UK, and large scale private investment companies and hedge funds.
What I see as Carney’s overwhelming advantage, is his insight and vision in dealing with the Trump vision of world domination. Carney sees the need for diversified economic policy framework, combining multiple strategic options within a single strategic policy portfolio aimed at Canadian independence in production and economy.
As part of the development of this framework, combining multiple strategies within a single portfolio, is the enabling of the government and Cabinet to allocate available budget allocated funds across various priorities as the needs, Trump surprises, and opportunities arise. All of this framework will be conceptually constructed, and shadow funded, to be planned and in place in times of need.
As I have said before, my view is that we need the competencies of Carney to run such a Multi-Optional strategic framework, and to represent it in action.
I don’t think the business as usual Conservatives, and PPCon are capable of constructing and implementing such a multiple option, multi-strategic and multinational policy frame.
Two things
First, the Leaders Debate Commission should go.
Two, many of your points are valid, some reflect the bias of the beholder.
Ray, I felt that Carney’s demeanor was that of the adult in the room. Although he lacked “attack dog” brimstone, I felt his reasoned point by point responses were indicative of how he thinks things through
Poilievre delivery was rehearsed and phoney right down to the tear filled last statement where the tears were almost laughable..
Blanchet is a joke and while he has to be included in debates, he is clearly only there to stir up more division…Donald Trump must have had a field day as he watched his performance. The Bloc leader provides great fodder for “divide and conquer”
Singh was combative and sincerely passionate but his spending policies are out of sync with the electorate.
Carney was mercilessly attacked but defended with class and respect not stooping to the level of the others…his vast international economic experience, his measured manner and his intellect will certainly get under Trump’s skin.
In my opinion, tlhe debate has become more about a theatrical performance than an indicator of job competence.
What I saw – Carney tap danced away and did not answer the difficult questions, just like a typical politician. Singh interrupted more than Maxine Bernier. Poilievre showed he is not the MAGA maniac the Liberal Party has portrayed him to be. Did Carney hand out fake Stop the Steal buttons before the debate?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/carney-buttons-staffers-reassigned-1.7509662