Tensions High as Leaders Spar in Montreal

With just one week until election day on April 28, federal party leaders faced each other in a debate that hinged on who is the best choice to fight for Canada in the face of U.S. President Donald Trump’s threats of punishing tariffs and annexing Canada into the United States.

For Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre and NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh, the stakes were especially high. Poilievre has seen his once commanding lead in the polls evaporate after his campaign was slow to pivot to the threat posed by Trump; polls now show the Liberals in the lead, although that lead has narrowed in recent weeks.

Meanwhile, as voters have gravitated towards the Liberals, the NDP has seen its projected vote share drop precipitously. The party that signed a confidence and supply agreement with the Liberals in 2022, winning dental care and pharmacare programs in return, now faces a potential loss in power and influence.

Newly minted Liberal Leader and Prime Minister Mark Carney also had something to prove: that the former Bank of Canada and Bank of England governor could hold his own amongst more seasoned politicians — and have the charisma and presence necessary to connect with voters.

And in a wild twist that also illustrated how the tactics of the far right have inserted themselves into every facet of Canadian politics, the debate was upstaged by drama in the press gallery around the debate commission’s decision to grant Rebel News multiple questions in the post-debate scrum.

Here are five things we noticed during the English-language debate.

The use and abuse of the notwithstanding clause

Carney’s best moment of the night came early, as he responded to Poilievre’s comments on the notwithstanding clause. Poilievre has promised to use the notwithstanding clause to allow judges to impose consecutive sentences in cases where someone has been convicted of multiple murders. That would override a Supreme Court of Canada ruling from 2022 that found that imposing consecutive life sentences violates the perpetrator’s Charter rights.

It would be unprecedented in Canada for a federal government to use the notwithstanding clause to overrule the Supreme Court. But Poilievre has argued that cases like that of Alexandre Bissonnette, who killed six people in a Quebec City mosque in 2017, show why the court decision needs to be overruled. It was Bissonnette’s appeal of his consecutive sentences that led to the 2022 ruling.

“I want to uphold the Charter rights of Canadians under Section 7 to life, liberty and security of the person,” Poilievre argued. “Right now, that right is violated by multiple murderers who were given discounts.”

While that might sound convincing, Carney persuasively defended the role of the courts in Canada’s system of democracy — something that’s at top of mind for many Canadians keeping a close eye on the Trump administration’s disregard for the United States’ independent judiciary.

“I think that one of the core responsibilities of the federal government and the prime minister is to defend the fundamental rights and liberties of Canadians, and those fundamental rights and liberties of Canadians are outlined in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” Carney said.

“I think it's a very dangerous slope to override judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada. In fact, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms exists to protect Canadians from people like us on the stage — politicians who may use their power to override fundamental rights.”

“The issue in using, by the federal government, is not where you start, but where will you stop?”

Does anyone care about climate change?

Poilievre and Carney have both promised to focus on getting oil and gas pipelines built as a way to strengthen Canada’s economy and reduce our reliance on the United States. For over a year, Poilievre has campaigned on getting rid of the federal carbon tax, and in the face of public opposition to the consumer carbon tax, Carney removed it earlier this year.

That led moderator Steve Paikin to ask NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh: “Do you think climate change is still a priority from Canadians?”

While Poilievre pushed the theory that Canada’s oil and gas will replace “dirtier” fuels like coal in countries like India, Carney pledged to invest federal money in carbon capture technology. Experts have questioned the narrative that fossil fuels can act like a “bridge” between coal and renewables, while carbon capture is very expensive and has been shown to reduce emissions by only a small fraction.

So it fell to Singh to outline the dire impact of climate events like British Columbia’s deadly heat dome, forest fires that make it hard for children to breathe and the catastrophic flooding that hit the Lower Mainland in 2021.

Onstage, Singh pushed Carney to eliminate oil and gas subsidies, which Carney said he would do.

Meanwhile, Yves-François Blanchet, the leader of the Bloc Québécois, pointed out that removing the industrial carbon tax would affect Canada’s ability to sell oil to European Union countries — something Liberal ministers have pitched as a way to reduce our dependence on U.S. markets.

“I'm sorry to crush your party guys, but you are telling fairy tales,” Blanchet told Carney and Poilievre. “Clean oil and gas is a fairy tale.”

That’s because next year, all European countries will impose an import tariff on goods made with less stringent or non-existent carbon taxes, and other countries may soon follow suit. That could mean that if Canada did away with the federal industrial carbon tax, exports like steel and aluminum could face new trade barriers.

Both Singh and Blanchet said they would focus on expanding hydro and renewable electricity instead of boosting oil and gas.

Meanwhile, Poilievre took Carney to task for keeping the industrial carbon tax, saying the tax would stifle Canada’s economy at a time when it needs to grow.

Public safety fears, international conflicts

Poilievre outlined a particularly dark vision of Canada, a place where “people are living in terror” of crime and drugs.

But public safety fears at home were not the only dark clouds the leaders pictured hanging over Canada. The United States’ aggressive stance against former allies has unsettled longtime security guarantees, and the candidates were asked about their stance on supporting Ukraine following the Trump administration’s sharp turn away from supporting the country, which was invaded by Russia in early 2022 and has been embroiled in war ever since.

While Poilievre said a Conservative government would continue to support Ukraine, Carney pointed out that Poilievre had promised to cut foreign aid and had voted against a free-trade agreement with Ukraine.

Paikin also urged the leaders to respond to the war in Gaza, a situation that has led to protests in Canadian cities and a rise in both Islamophobia and antisemitism.

Carney said he would introduce a law preventing protests near synagogues, community centres and schools, while Poilievre said people who immigrate to Canada should “leave foreign conflicts behind.”

Singh countered Poilievre, pointing out that people who come to Canada “care deeply about where they come from, and they should be able to do so.”

“That's a part of being in our country, to have that freedom. Your treatment of Palestinians has been, frankly, disgusting. Your treatment of people who provide care and service of people in Gaza has been disgusting,” Singh said, speaking to Poilievre. “On top of that, people in Israel and in Palestine deserve to live in peace and security. And Mr. Carney, to date, you've not acknowledged that what's going on in Gaza has now clearly become a genocide. It's important to call things out as they are, and you've not done that.”

In another portion of the debate, the leaders were asked about the gravest threat to Canada. Poilievre named a “rampant crime wave that is running out of control.” Carney simply said “China,” while Singh named guns and drugs that come into Canada across the border.

Blanchet said what keeps him up at night is “the fact that neither Quebec or Canada is able to protect ourselves — we’re still entirely dependent on Americans to protect us.”

Security clearance, schmecurity clearance

When Carney asked Poilievre why he hadn’t gotten a security clearance, an issue that has dogged him for months as foreign interference in Canadian politics dominated news headlines and sparked a federal inquiry, the Conservative leader scored a win.

Poilievre has given a consistent answer to this question throughout the campaign, and he was able to stick to his story with convincing relish. Getting a security clearance, he said, something all other party leaders have done, would prevent Poilievre from speaking publicly about the content of those intelligence briefings.

“It has allowed me to speak freely about things like the case where one of your candidates, sir, actually said that he wanted to send a political opponent to China under a bounty, threatening his life or imprisonment,” Poilievre said, referring to the case of Paul Chiang, whom the Liberals waited days to drop after Chiang’s comments had been reported.

“And you refused to get rid of him.”

Drama in the newsroom

After a 2021 court challenge, Rebel News won the right to attend federal election debates as accredited news media. But journalists were shocked when far-right outlets Rebel News, Juno News and True North were given five questions following the French-language debate on April 16. Those writers lobbed a mix of queries dwelling on culture war topics like trans women in sports and residential school denialism, in addition to portraying all pro-Palestine protesters as terrorist supporters. Singh refused to answer any questions from those outlets, saying Rebel News promotes hate.

Tensions boiled over last night after Rebel News publisher Ezra Levant and several other Rebel News staffers attempted to interrupt a live CBC broadcast, according to CBC journalist David Cochrane. Video posted by a True North writer also showed a verbal altercation between Rebel News presenter Keean Bexte and another reporter.

The result? The entire post-debate scrum was cancelled. Nobody got to ask anything of the leaders. And an entirely separate set of questions has now been raised as to how Rebel News was even able to retain its news media access after registering as a third-party election advertiser.

Our comment threads will be closed until April 22 to give our moderators a much-deserved break. Enjoy the long weekend!