At Issue - Who came off best in the French debate?

Episode Date: April 17, 2025

In a special Canada Votes edition of At Issue, Rosemary Barton and the panel discuss who came off best and worst in the French-language leaders' debate, whether Mark Carney’s French passed muster, and whether Pierre Poilievre succeeded in appearing more prime ministerial. Rosemary Barton hosts Chantal Hébert, Andrew Coyne and Althia Raj.

On the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz comes an unprecedented exhibition about one of history's darkest moments. Auschwitz, not long ago, not far away, features more than 500 original objects, first-hand accounts and survivor testimonies that tell the powerful story of the Auschwitz concentration camp, its history and legacy, and the underlying conditions that allowed the Holocaust to happen. On now exclusively at Rom. Tickets at Rom.ca. This is a CBC Podcast. Hey there, I'm Rosemary Barton. This week on At Issue, the podcast edition for Wednesday, April 16th. At Issue tonight, the French debates. Party leaders are in Montreal

for the first of two debates with less than two weeks to election day. How are party leaders trying to sway votes in their direction? Chantelle Iber, Andrew Coyne and Althea Raj join me to talk about the highlights and questions coming out of the French debate. Let's just start with who, who gained anything from this debate. And maybe that's the wrong question because maybe nobody did. But Chantelle, do you think that anyone came out of this night in a better shape than they came in? Yes, but it doesn't change anything to the dynamics in this province in the sense that I'm going to say Mark Carney came out unskated. None of the punches from the other leaders really landed. And that by definition means that he gained because he's got this debate behind him.

And by all accounts, it was one of the last best chances for the other parties to change or to reverse the pro-liberal trend that has been manifest in every poll since the election was called. OK, and I want to come back to the people that didn't maybe get to where they needed to get to to make a difference. But Andrew, your thoughts on whether anyone came out ahead tonight? Not a winner. I'm not asking for a winner.

I would never dare ask for that. Well, you know, when you come in several points ahead nationally and 20 points or more ahead in Quebec, then you win by simply not losing. He didn't hurt his cause and therefore he helped his cause. Conversely, Pierre-Paul Yavre, who needed to make ground on him, didn't help his cause and in that way hurt his cause. The onus was on him and on Banchet to make yards in this race, in this debate, and they

really didn't. I was struck by the fact that, you know, when the liberals are 25 points ahead of you, you're really not gonna turn that around in a debate. The only chance that either of them got, I think, to claw back some seats in Quebec is to make the anti-liberal vote coalesce around one party or the other,

the Bloc or the conservatives. And they spent more time attacking Mr. Carney than they did dealing with each other, and I think they missed an opportunity. Althea? I will agree that I think Mark Carney had the best performance that of all of the leaders, because the stakes were so high because he is the primary Challenger to all the opposition parties at the moment in Quebec Not just across the country but in Quebec and so he had the most to lose and he didn't He didn't step into anything that was problematic I think a Jagmeet Singh up until the very last moment probably would have had a good night.

I think a lot of people would have been if they're tuning in for the first time. I know it's not the first time he's on that stage, but my mother was commenting to me recently about Jagmeet Singh's French. She's a francophone. But then he started arguing with the moderator about not having enough time and being cut off when he talked about healthcare, so I think that, sorry for him. I think if you're a conservative or a liberal, you're probably happy with how your leader did.

May I just note though that while the race in Quebec is incredibly important, the debate that actually sunk the liberals last time and was a boon to the Blec-Ybiqua was actually the English debate. It was a Bill 21 question that happened in the English debate, not the French debate. So while, you know, Mark Carney may have walked off unscathed, it doesn't mean that any issues that percolate with regards to Quebec might not come up tomorrow, and that could cause liberalism problems.

Well, if we're going to go there, can we note that the person who scored for the Bloc Québécois was the actual moderator and none of the other leaders in that previous debate. I'm not expecting Steve Bacon to go down that particular road as the moderator tomorrow. No, but you can see Yves-François Blanchet doing it. Yeah, but yeah, I'll get to tomorrow in a moment. Go ahead, Chanselle. Let's be serious.

That's right. Yves-François Blanchet's big night was tonight. The reason why the last debate was a big night for him wasn't because people were watching, but because of the indignation that he managed to build out of it, and the sense that Quebec had been attacked through him. That's a very different proposition. Now that being said, I was, I don't know, I expected Mr. Ploiev to have more of a dominant presence on the stage.

There were moments when I wondered if he was still on the podium. Yves-Francois Blanchet was looking for a handle and I don't think he managed to find it. And Jacques Mitzing did, yes. I mean, none of them had a bad debate, but there was no sense that people who were thinking of voting liberal in this province would have come away thinking I'm missing out on something

by not going with one of the other three. No, I mean, it was a good debate. It was well moderated and lots of people, there was lots of things said about different topics. Andrew, yeah. Yeah, it was a very well-run debate. The format was good from the standpoint of democracy and a better understanding, at least

the format was. But what is good for a democracy in that case is not necessarily good for the opposition parties because it's harder to land a haymaker, it's harder to create a kind of chaotic situation where somebody can really mess up. So it was hard to push Mark Carney out of his comfort zone. You couldn't sort of gang up on him with a free-for-all the way we've seen in some debates where everyone's talking over each other. But as I say, from the standpoint of actually understanding what they were saying, that was better.

Let's talk about Mr. Poliev, because Chantel alluded there, Althea, to Mr. Poliev. She sometimes wondered whether he was there. I would imagine that that was partly intentional, that they want Mr. Poliev to be calm, prime ministerial, they don't want him to be attacking. And I wonder whether you think that that worked for him given that he didn't have as much at stake at all as Mr. Carney. I think on some key messages he succeeded. Like he talked to Quebecers that live in the regions about how he was going to get rid of the Liberals' electric vehicle mandate, that they could keep their cars and their trucks and that he would build more highways.

He spoke to a very segmented group of the province and I don't think that was not on purpose. It was very clear that he would pass through pipelines even if some provinces and indigenous groups say they don't want it, which is unconstitutional, but we'll get to that later, I'm assuming. Where I think that it was interesting is that balance. And you can tell that he's kind of struggling with it

because yes, he needs to act prime ministerial, and in Quebec, I think he's been given the advice that Quebecers don't like it when people fight. But at the same time, a lot of the comments that you hear from Pierre Proliéve on the campaign trail, whether it's in his press conferences or in his rallies, about Mr. Carney, that he is unethical, that he has questions to answer on his financial dealings, that he was, you know, the head of Brookfield's funds that have offshore, who were set up

in offshore tax havens. The type of criticism that we hear over and over and over from Mr. Poliev was nowhere on the stage tonight. So that was an interesting strategy choice from them. But attacking personally during a debate would be kind of odd. Yeah, Chantal and Andrew. No, but it's also that if you're going to stay on topic, and we saw what happened to Chuck Mead Singh when he tried to go off topic to talk about health care and by the way if you're gonna do the health care thing may be better to keep it for tomorrow night because in this province health care is Widely universally considered a provincial responsibility

And so no one is thinking that Jack Mead Singh is going to come to the rescue and hire doctors and nurses but on Pierre Poilieff's performance, let's be serious here. Someone tonight needed a game changer to walk away from this debate, to say I accomplished my goals. And that did not happen to any of the three. We can pick and choose this and that and that sentence. Vehicle mandates, by the way, in this case, our provincial legislation backs them. So, and I'm not too sure that most Quebecers knew exactly what he was talking about,

about some conspiracy to stop people from driving their cars. But we are here to say, people from driving their cars. But we are here to say, will this change the nature of the election campaign going forward? Not in Quebec at all. 20 seconds, Andrew. Well, there's no doubt that this was a more prime ministerial tone that probably overstruck today. The problem is he needed to strike that tone back in, let's say, January. You can't just show up 10 days before the election and suddenly have a change of demeanor and he wasn't able to inject more policy differences which he needs to do to get the focus off of leadership. Okay, we're going to take a short break here. That was a good first round. When we come back, we'll keep the conversation going about the debates, what we can expect from

tomorrow, what happened to the Green Party today, all of that is next. Welcome back, the Add Issue panel here to discuss a little bit of what we saw tonight, what we're watching for tomorrow. Let's bring in everyone, Chantal, Andrew, Althea. I want to do one round if I can on what happened with the Green Party today. Althea, were you surprised? The commission said we had criteria, we don't think you met it, and so you're out. I'm surprised the decision came to the party at 7.20 or something this morning. A lot of people were raising concerns about the Greens not meeting the three criteria, basically. They had to have an MP elected in the House, obviously. They have two, so they met that. They needed 4% of support before the deadline. They didn't have that,

and they needed like 90% of candidates before the deadline, they didn't have that, and they needed like 90% of candidates before the deadline, which they did have, but they no longer have. So in a way, they're both kind of right, like the party saying, well, we met the criteria as laid out because they did meet it at the time it was laid out, and there is a specific date reference in that criteria. And the commission coming up and now saying well you don't meet it now. Well is the criteria that you don't meet it now before the debate or is the criteria that you didn't meet it at the date that

the debate Commission has set out? So I can see why they're very upset and frankly the Green Party's entire strategy for this election and for the next decade rested on their new co-leader Jonathan Penault having this national stage to introduce himself as next wave of leadership to replace Elizabeth May and now they're starved of that and you can understand why they're also upset that Yves-François Blanchet only speaks to Quebecers and he's on stage two nights and most Canadians in their writings can vote for a Green MP or Green candidate and they don't have somebody on that stage representing the ideology that most aligns with them.

Chantal, quickly. The Green Party assured the commission when the invitation was issued, that it would have 90% of 343 candidates. And then when the nomination closed, they were short about 100 from 343. And then they were giving interviews all week to say they actually gave up running candidates in many seats to make more room for progressive candidates. Well, they didn't give up, by the way, 60 or 70 seats in that fashion. So at some point, you either live by the rules or you don't.

Two points. Why did it take the commission this long? As far as I know, the decision was taken yesterday afternoon. And to tell you the truth, it came out five minutes after I went to Rézou Canada and counted how many podiums were left and found that where there had been five, there were four. So yes, I had a tip that something was happening.

But still, I don't know when they were planning to announce it. Frankly, that is what I do, basic journalism. I went into Rézouada to do a regular hit. I counted the chairs and there were only four left for the Peters. And then I went on air. Even Chantelle Iber does basic journalism still.

Well, five minutes later, suddenly they announced that they were doing this. So why did it take so long? Why no due diligence? You either have rules or you don't. And if you have rules, then you want to check that those rules are being respected. And let's add to this the improvisation over the change in time. The schedule for the NHL comes out in July. So the last game

of the season for the Montreal Canadiens was tonight as of last July. And I'm not going to go into the accreditation and the scrums that we just watched, which beg questions as to the judgment of the commission. Okay, quickly, Andrew, and then I just want a quick go around on what you're going to watch for tomorrow, Andrew. Yeah, I really don't have a lot to add. Althea said they're both right. I think they were both wrong. Okay, there you go.

Okay, let's look at what you're going to watch for tomorrow. Althea said they're both right. I think they were both wrong. Okay, there you go. Okay, let's look at what you're going to watch for tomorrow. Althea? Well, if anything happens that changes the current trajectory because so far nothing has. So can any of the opposition leaders land anything on Mark Carney that makes people doubt his ability to lead or his, you know, as we've seen in pressers and whatnot, or his ethics or values because we we haven't seen any of that really stick at the moment. Chantal? This was the best opportunity for the opposition

leaders to catch Mark Carney looking like a deer caught in the headlights because of his challenges in French. Tomorrow we won't have a language challenge. So I expect an informative debate, but I'm not sure that you can turn this election around on a debate performance anymore. Is there anything that Pierre Poliev could do tomorrow, Andrew, that would, that would change the direction a little bit? I mean, we are seeing a little bit of tightening in polls, but maybe not in the areas where

the conservatives need it. A little, little bit. It's a long shot. The hour is very late. However many days we are to election day. The problem for the conservatives all through this campaign is that the liberals have been hugging close to them on policy and therefore keeping all the focus on Donald Trump and who's the best leader to deal with Donald Trump. He's not going to move people off of Carney just by attacking him and calling him names or accusing him of various things.

I think that's been settled in this thing. The only change he's got is to try to get the focus back on policy, and I know this is a long shot, but maybe he needs to inject some new policy proposal that can kind of get people talking about him and get the focus back on policy. Could Jagmeet Singh do anything to improve his outcome tomorrow? Do you think Althea, like let's not talk about winning, but could he do anything to improve things? I think Jagmeet Singh's primary purpose at the moment is to safeguard the seats that he has and to convince new Democrats not to vote for the Liberal Party.

That's what he needs to do tomorrow. I think I just want to flag something kind of building on what Andrew was saying. I think we need to stress how unusual and rather anti-democratic it is that we do not have a fiscal costing of any of the party's platforms. And one of the reasons why the focus is on leadership is because we don't have any material on which to judge these leaders' election plans and what they plan to do when they get to government. Yeah. We are going to get that in the coming days from Chair Pauliyev and Mark Carney. Last

word to you, Chantelle, quickly. It's going to be really hard for anyone to change the conversation from who is the best prime minister. And that means it's kind of a toss-up. If Pierre Paulyev is very strong, then the people who would vote new Democrat but are spooked by him will flock even more to the liberals and vice versa. So the dynamics of this are hard for any of the opposition leaders. And that's an issue. What did you think of the French debate? Has it changed your mind?

Let us know. Send us an email at ask at cbc.ca. You can catch me on Rosemary Barton Live Sundays at 10 a.m. Eastern. We will, of course course be back in your feeds tomorrow with our English debate episode. Thanks for listening.