Jamie Sarkonak: Who won the debate? Poilievre, easy

There is no doubt as to who won Thursday night’s English-language debate. That achievement went to Pierre Poilievre, who, while delivering a coherent message about his own hopeful vision for a future, more prosperous Canada, ran circles around a sluggish Mark Carney and deflected the volley of Jagmeet Singh’s pea-gravel-sized interruptions.

If there was any attack dog on the floor, it was Bloc Québecois Leader Yves-François Blanchet, who for much of the debate kept his metaphorical jaws snapped around Carney’s leg.

No matter what he did, Carney just couldn’t shake Blanchet. The Bloc leader accused Carney of promising to force pipelines through Quebec in English, and the opposite in French. He berated Carney for bringing up child care and health, matters of provincial responsibility. He accused Carney of not sufficiently hearing out the concerns of Quebec Premier François Legault. He decried Carney for associating with the Century Initiative, the advocacy group urging massive population growth, by hiring one of its founders as an adviser.

In contrast to Singh’s lukewarm attempts at hot takes, Blanchet actually sizzled. He mocked Carney’s crisis management skills, as the latter was anti-Brexit while he was serving as the United Kingdom’s central banker (the country ultimately left the European Union). As for Carney’s negotiating skills, Blanchet wondered aloud what deals the Liberal leader has negotiated aside from tax havens in the Caribbean.

Carney, for the most part, tried to keep an even tone in the delivery of his message. Only, his message was bland, vulnerable to hole-poking, and, at worst, promised things we Canadians already have.

Take crime, for example. The topic easily went to Poilievre, who defended his intention to use the notwithstanding clause to re-legalize the sentencing of mass murderers to actual life in prison (at present, mass murderers have to become eligible for parole after 25 years because the Supreme Court has ruled that lengthier parole ineligibility periods amount to Charter-violating cruel and unusual punishment).

Carney objected to this, insisting that Parliament should submit wholly to the courts on the matter of criminal punishment; to make any intervention otherwise embarks on a “dangerous slope.” Less dangerous, apparently, was the prospect of a literal mass murderer walking free at the pleasure of a generous parole board.

It was impossible for Carney to gain the upper hand on the file. He tried, referencing Justin Trudeau’s minor edits to the Criminal Code: tweaks to bail law and to gun crime sentencing. As for his own ideas, he proposed to criminalize the act of impeding anyone from “being near or going to their place of worship, their school, their community centre” — but this, however, is already a crime, captured under the umbrellas of mischief and causing disturbance.

Carney made a similar gaffe last week, promising to revoke the gun licences from people facing domestic violence charges — which has been the law in Canada since the 1980s.

Severe errors like these couldn’t be made on the topic of Carney’s financial assets because he simply wouldn’t answer. Asked by Blanchet whether he’d disclose his assets given his history as a fund manager and board chair in the Brookfield corporate empire, he boasted about the company’s success and maintained that he “followed all the rules.”

Carney’s own zinger against Poilievre on the matter of security clearance missed: Poilievre explained how the current federal government’s briefings come with a gag order that could keep him from talking about, or acting on, allegations of foreign interference.

It was a sore spot for the Liberal leader, who, despite holding office for a month, had already done his share of ignoring blatant foreign interference by refusing to boot candidate Paul Chiang from the party. Chiang told supporters (jokingly, he says) that they could turn in his Conservative opponent to Chinese authorities for a real bounty of $1 million. When Poilievre brought this up, Carney’s eyes went wide.

Poilievre’s focus of the night? The same as his campaign: prosperity. While acknowledging the need for environmental protection, he drilled down on the importance of repealing the Liberal Impact Assessment Act early, drawing a line from the current unworkable state of Canada’s environmental legislation to its wilted economic condition. Carney, on the other hand, insisted that the existing system was adequate.

Poilievre pointed out the sheer unfairness of today’s rental market, the necessity of alleviating taxes on housing, the need to keep regular Canadians safe by protecting us from the worst of our country’s criminals. He, too, delved into the immigration issue, accusing Liberal ministers for having “allowed massive overcrowding” that “has caused housing shortages, job shortages.”

“Today, many of you are worried about paying your bills, feeding your families or ever even owning a home,” Poilievre closed. “You’re worried your kids are in danger, but I’m here to say, it doesn’t have to be this way. With change, we can restore the Canadian promise so that hard work gets you a beautiful house on a safe street under a proud flag.”

He was stoic, stately and genuinely passionate about the prospect of a better Canada — a stark contrast to his opponent, who seemed to be on the drowsy hunt for his next administrative post.