Strategists say no campaign shakeup after French debate as Carney emerges unscathed

OTTAWA — Political strategists said Wednesday that no single party leader was able to punch through and disrupt the election’s status quo in Wednesday’s French leaders debate — allowing rookie Liberal Leader Mark Carney to emerge mostly unscathed.

That leaves the race largely unchanged as all eyes turn to Thursday night’s English language debate. Expert observers say they’ll be watching to see if Carney trips up or if Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, whose party is now trailing in the polls, decides to take more risks and a more aggressive stance.

Carney — whose rusty French has led to gaffes during the campaign — had the most to lose. He was debating on the national stage for the first time, in a second language, addressing a key audience for his party.

Jonathan Kalles, a consultant at McMillan Vantage and a former Quebec adviser to former Liberal prime minister Justin Trudeau, said the debate did not shake up the playing field in the way that televised debates sometimes can.

“I don’t think anybody stood out. Carney’s French was fine. People understood what he was saying, he made his points, he was the centre of everyone’s attack and he held his ground — exactly what he was trying to do,” he said.

He added he’ll be watching the Conservative leader closely during the English debate because Poilievre will be under pressure to land a knockout blow on Carney.

“Poilievre needed a big win and he definitely didn’t have that,” Kalles said.

Dimitri Soudas, once director of communications to former prime minister Stephen Harper and a political analyst for Radio-Canada, said the debate wrapped up with the status quo in place.

“A very solid performance by both Mr. Carney and Mr. Poilievre,” he said, adding there was no knockout blow like the memorable “You had an option, sir” line that Brian Mulroney hit John Turner with in the 1984 debate.

“Mr. Carney, I think he clearly, quote-unquote, won the debate and the reason I say that is he was the one that had the most to lose,” he said. “Carney, I believe, communicated with clarity and ease in French. I’ve been one of his harshest critics on the quality of his French. He was actually quite good.”

Soudas said Poilievre’s French was “impeccable,” allowing him to very clearly explain his positions, but while he stood his ground he may have missed an opportunity to convert undecided voters.

Bloc Québécois Yves-François Blanchet attempted several times to land blows against Carney, with little apparent success.

Matthew Dubé, a former Quebec NDP MP and now vice president at Proof Strategies, said that with Carney emerging from the debate undamaged, the question now is whether Poilievre chooses to be more aggressive Thursday night.

“It was a good debate but ultimately I don’t think there was enough fireworks to upend the apple cart,” he said. “(Carney) navigated some really thorny issues well and ultimately, for a supposed front-runner, I don’t really think he could have done much differently tonight.”

Dubé said the New Democrats have struggled to be heard during this campaign, thanks to an “unforgiving” news cycle focused on the chaos coming from U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration. He said he was pleased that Singh “made the best use” of the national debate platform and “showed some really important feistiness that a lot of supporters will appreciate.”

He also said Singh’s zinger on the Bloc — calling it as “useless” in Parliament as the monarchy — stood out to him as a high point.

But both Kalles and Soudas said it was a bad decision for Singh to spend an inordinate amount of time attacking Poilievre when he needed to focus squarely on Carney.

“How else to put it but, what a dumb move,” Soudas said. “By attacking Poilievre so much, he drove his voters to the Liberal party. So, congratulations, Jagmeet Singh.”

This report by The Canadian Press was first published April 16, 2025.

Kyle Duggan, The Canadian Press