The first leaders’ debate was held 57 years ago this June during the 1968 federal election. It saw new Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau face off against Robert Stanfield for the Progressive Conservatives, Tommy Douglas of the NDP and Real Caouette, leader of the Ralliement Creditiste.
It was only in 1979, after an eleven-year hiatus, that another leaders’ debate was held, and they have been a part of every election since.
The relative importance of these debates varies directly with their contribution to voter understanding and whether they produce a decisive moment that may influence the election’s outcome.
What the debates seek to achieve
Senator Donna Dasko, who spent an earlier career in public opinion research, makes the case for their value:
Leaders’ debates may be the single most important opportunity for voters to learn about the choices before them, the character and temperament of leaders, the party policies and the approaches to national issues.
As Elly Alboim and Paul Adams argued in a 2016 Policy Options article:
The reason debates between those aspiring to be prime minister are so important is simple: they give voters a ‘third window’ on a campaign that they must otherwise watch through the imperfect prisms of the parties themselves and the media.…
They went on to note that:
Undecided voters approach a leaders’ debate not as a sporting match, nor as a TV reality show, but as a unique opportunity to hear the leaders’ proposals and to evaluate their characters. Debates, with their combination of exposition and interaction between candidates, are surprisingly good at giving undecided voters what they want and need.
Former Conservative cabinet minister James Moore takes a contrary view of the leaders’ debates:
They are typically a gotcha communications exercise about exploiting the well-meaning curiosity of the country’s voters to emotionally charge cohorts of voters rather than a sincere presentation of competing views and values.
Moore goes on to note that segments from each debate are “clipped into social media hors d’oeuvres that are dished out in real time while the debates are still underway to drive clicks, donations, likes and anger.”
The search for knockouts
Among avid debate watchers, hope springs eternal that fireworks and drama will occur when the leaders convene, but few debates have produced such outcomes.
In 2011, NDP leader Jack Layton demolished Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff when he accused him of having “the worst attendance record in the House of Commons of any member of Parliament. You know, most Canadians, if they don’t show up for work, they don’t get a promotion. You missed 70% of the votes.” Ignatieff had no response, and Layton and the NDP displaced the Liberals and formed the Official Opposition.
The all-time champion for a leaders’ debate knockout is the Brian Mulroney-John Turner exchange over patronage appointments during the 1984 federal election. Just before leaving office in June of that year, Pierre Trudeau left a poison pill for his successor John Turner, by appointing 23 Liberal ministers and MPs to the Senate and various other posts. But Trudeau finalized only six of the appointments, and left 17 for Turner to complete, which he did upon assuming office, just before calling the election.
During that debate, it was Turner who initially raised the issue of patronage, but Mulroney turned the tables on him, demanding that Turner apologize for making “these horrible appointments”. Turner replied that he “had no option”. At that point, Mulroney took off, declaring, “You had an option, sir. You could have said, ‘I am not going to do it.’ You had an option, sir — to say ‘no’ — and you chose to say ‘yes’ to the old attitudes and the old stories of the Liberal Party. That sir, if I may say respectfully, that is not good enough for Canadians.” This exchange was devastating for Turner and decisive for Mulroney, and the Conservatives swept into office with 211 seats in the election on September 4.
In the United States, presidential debates have changed the course of several election campaigns. In the first ever American debate in the 1960 campaign, people listening on radio were convinced that Richard Nixon bested John F. Kennedy, but those watching on television saw a Nixon who was pasty-faced, had a five o’clock shadow and was sweating profusely. For them, Kennedy was the clear winner.
Last summer’s pre-campaign debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump was a disaster for Biden. At several points, he lost his train of thought, jumbled words and appeared at a loss for words. His performance cost him the nomination and Kamala Harris replaced him on the Democratic ticket. In her debate with Trump, the broad consensus was that she won hands down, but in the election, Trump beat her handily.
Preparing for the debates
All parties start their debate preparations by identifying the audience segments they want to reach and then developing the arguments and messages necessary to connect with them. The campaigns decide where they want to go on offence, where they will be on defence and where they must play for a draw. Preparing for offence, they examine their opponents’ pain points and develop potential lines of attack. For defensive postures, they will develop approaches to bridge away to alternative points they want to make. They will also work on “zingers”, those short, sharp debating points that deliver maximum damage. The leaders will usually practice in role playing sessions with their senior advisors, preparing for the tough questions, delivering even sharper retorts, while honing their presentation, delivery and tone.
Positioning strategies
Going into this weeks’ French and English language debates, the campaigns will carefully position their respective leaders with an eye to the election, which is less than two weeks away.
Mark Carney
Mr. Carney enters the debates as the perceived front runner, so his principal objective will be to maintain his party’s momentum while avoiding mistakes or gaffes. His handlers will remind him that “boring works” and to avoid taking risks. Carney’s biggest advantage is the lead the polls give him over Pierre Poilievre as the leader best equipped to deal with Donald Trump. He likely understands that the Liberal lead is widely based but soft, coming largely at the expense of NDP and Bloc Quebecois support, so a major objective will be to cement the Liberal lead. Carney is still learning the cut and thrust of partisan politics but has proven experience in managing economic challenges and crises from the head of the table in two G7 countries. Therefore, expect him to play to these strengths to capitalize on the importance of the Trump factor in the ballot question.
Pierre Poilievre, Jagmeet Singh, and Bloc Quebecois Leader Yves-François Blanchet will come at Carney on the nine-year Liberal record. Carney will counter by casting himself as an agent of change and bridging to his decisions on ending the carbon tax and eliminating the capital gains changes. He will promote his vision for diversifying the Canadian economy to confront the tariff turmoil created by Trump.
Carney also has some weaknesses which the other leaders will probe. These include a perceived softness on China, as well as potential conflicts arising from his time as Chairman of Brookfield Asset Management which include that company’s use of tax havens, and the transparency of his personal asset disclosure upon becoming Prime Minister.
Pierre Poilievre
As the underdog in what has become a two-party race, Poilievre faces more stark challenges than Carney, starting with his slow pivot in addressing the Trump factor. He has also faced criticism for spending too much time preaching to his own parish, and not enough widening his appeal to new supporters. The debates represent the last, best opportunity for the Conservatives to change the frame of the election in terms of who is best positioned to manage Trump’s tariff chaos and assaults on Canada.
Conservative support is the most committed of all the parties and strongest among men generally, and particularly among younger men aged 18-34. They suffer, however, from a significant gender gap, among women in general but especially among the lower age cohort of women. As Conservative strategist Tasha Kheiriddin colourfully put it in her blog this past weekend, “Why are women getting the ick? Because they can smell the “eau de bro”, and it reminds them of the politician they most despise: Trump.”
A substantial number of Canadian Conservatives are warm to Trump, and it is not helpful to Poilievre that Trump is at the centre of the ballot question. He will hear about it from the other leaders in the debate, and in response, he will press Carney on his international experience and what actual concessions he managed to obtain from Trump in their single telephone conversation.
Poilievre’s vast experience in politics and in the cut and thrust of debates provides an obvious edge over Carney, but he will need to be disciplined. He can be strident and overbearing at times at the expense of appearing to be thoughtful and measured. This past Sunday night, on Tout le monde en parle, the hugely watched Quebec public affairs TV show, Poilievre deployed a softer approach with some success.
According to the Globe and Mail’s Campbell Clark, he “was nothing like the aggressive, haranguing, sloganeering politician Canadians have seen at his campaign rallies and for most of his tenure. For those who know Mr. Poilievre, it was a surprisingly warm and congenial performance. And if there were francophones watching who still don’t know the Conservative Leader, it was about the best introduction he could have hoped for.” In the debates, watch for Poilievre to take a similarly softer tone and more persuasive approach, to facilitate outreach to women. He will likely take a similar tack in the French-language debate, because he remains less well-known in Quebec.
Jagmeet Singh
The seeming collapse of NDP support across the country forms a make-or-break backdrop for Mr. Singh in the debates. With his party stuck at below 10% in the polls, official party status in the House of Commons is clearly at risk for Singh and the NDP. Mark Carney will likely ignore him because the Liberals have benefitted significantly from the NDP’s weakness, and Pierre Poilievre will leave him alone because the Conservatives need a stronger NDP to weaken the progressive vote and create the splits at the riding level that enable them to win seats. Robbed of his traditional appeals for strategic voting by the Liberal surge, Mr. Singh could struggle to make himself and his party relevant in both debates.
Yves-Francois Blanchet
Yves-Francois Blanchet’s Bloc Quebecois party has suffered the same fate in Quebec as Jagmeet Singh’s NDP in the rest of Canada. The Trump ballot question has rendered the Bloc less relevant to Quebec voters and thereby given the advantage to the Liberals, who the polls now suggest are headed for a majority in that province. Blanchet may be less of a factor in the English-language debate than in the French debate, but his principal target remains Carney, whose facility in French he will question, as well as Carney’s knowledge of Quebec culture. He will also attack Carney’s commitment to challenge the latest version of Quebec’s controversial language law, and press Mark Carney to more closely align federal immigration policies with Quebec’s needs.
Insights in this piece contributed by Geoff Norquay.
