By Daniel Béland

April 17, 2025

There was no clear “winner” of the French-language leaders’ debate on Wednesday night in Montreal, but the lack of a clear loser, and the takeaways based on expectations, produced a number of results.

First, it is quite clear that this debate is unlikely to be particularly consequential in terms of shifting party standings in this campaign, partly because no party leader made major gaffes or stumbled badly. But in the end, it is highly probable that each leader who was on stage is satisfied of his performance.

Prime Minister and Liberal Leader Marc Carney was by far the least experienced politician on stage and also clearly the one who struggles the most with French. Because these facts were well known long before the debate, expectations about his performance were very low but, as my political-scientist colleague Geneviève Tellier stated on CPAC right after the debate ended, he met and perhaps even exceeded them, both in terms of content and level of French (not as “bad” as some had feared… or hoped). This does not mean that Carney “won” the debate but that he did not make any major gaffes, which is certainly what he, as the leader of the party ahead in the polls wanted, and why he played it safe.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre clearly wanted to appear less like an “attack dog” and more like a prime minister-in-waiting and he largely succeeded, appearing relatively calm and focused, with a limited use of slogans but a clear outline of what the Conservatives stand for while making sure to tie Mark Carney to the economic and policy legacy of the Justin Trudeau era. Still, for him like for NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh (whose party only had one seat in Quebec at dissolution), tonight’s English-language debate will be more significant electorally.

This is the case because, according to sources like the CBC Poll Tracker and Canada338, the Conservatives are not currently expected to win more than 15 seats (out of 78) in Quebec. Ontario, where 94% of the population is English-speaking, is the province with the most seats (122 of out of 343) and where the Conservatives need to quickly improve their numbers if they want to have a real shot at forming the next government.

This does not mean that Carney ‘won’ the debate but that he did not make any major gaffes, which is certainly what he, as the leader of the party ahead in the polls wanted, and why he played it safe.

Because of Green Leader Jonathan Pedneault’s last-minute exclusion from the debate, Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet was the only leader on stage whose mother tongue is French, something that gave him a clear advantage. Overall, he did well on his home turf (the debate took place in Montreal) as expected, not only because of the quality of his French but because he is an astute debater who is fast on his feet.

Was his performance strong enough to turn things around for the Bloc in Quebec, where it is currently trailing well behind the Liberals in the polls largely because the latter have clearly benefited from the “Trump effect”? Probably not, especially considering how dealing with Donald Trump remains the most central issue of the campaign for many Quebec voters.

Singh, whose party is doing is still doing poorly in the polls, made sure he was heard loud and clear on economic justice and social policy issues such as progressive taxation and health care funding, which are traditionally associated with the NDP and its electoral base. Sometimes he was perhaps too combative but at least viewers noticed him on stage and were reminded about what his party has long stood for.

Does any of this really matter to the last 10 days of the April 28th vote and, more generally, are leaders’ debates that important in terms of shaping electoral results? Based on the intense media coverage they generate and all the chatter on social media and beyond about who “wins” and “loses” them, one would expect debates to have a high likelihood of becoming game-changing events that make a clear difference in terms of electoral outcomes. Leaders debates are “big shows” and typically the most dramatic media moments of an electoral campaign.

Still, a number of commentators and political analysts such as former federal Conservative minister James Moore are calling into question all the hype surrounding these debates, arguing that they matter much less on average than what the common media wisdom might suggest.

In a way, from a substantive policy standpoint, even political parties do not seem to take the debates so seriously, something illustrated by their failure to unveil fully costed platforms ahead of them. By not doing so, they might avoid tough questions from debate moderators, but they also impoverish the policy content of the debates while contributing to the broader “information problem” facing today’s Canadian voters.

With the English debate now hours away, we’ll see whether its takeaways include anything closer to game-changing.

Daniel Béland is professor of political science and director (on leave) of the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada at McGill University.