John Ivison: A debate Liberals can call a success, but not much else

What would you do if you were stuck in one place and every day was exactly the same and nothing you did mattered? That was the question Phil Connors asked in the movie Groundhog Day, but it could equally have been put to the federal leaders who took part in debates over the past two nights. Everything was exactly the same and nothing much mattered. The only spark of life in Thursday’s English-language debate came in the last half-hour when leaders were allowed to put their own question to another leader of their choice. Mark Carney, the Liberal leader, was much more comfortable in his first language than in yesterday’s French, but was visibly rattled when Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative leader, accused him of being an adviser to Justin Trudeau during the “worst stagflation in a generation.” The challenge to his fiscal competence hit close to home and Carney said that when he was responsible for inflation as a central banker in Canada, inflation was less than two per cent and the dollar was a parity. “That’s the kind of success I can deliver for Canadians,” he said. Carney also took a hit from the NDP’s Jagmeet Singh, who accused Brookfield Asset Management, the company where Carney was recently chairman, of being “one of the biggest tax dodgers” and of hiking rents for millions of Canadians. Carney spoke about Brookfield for perhaps the first time, saying it is a great Canadian success story that contributes to pension returns. “I always acted with integrity. I served the shareholders of Brookfield, but I have left that and am now working for the people of Canada,” he said. That break with the traditional format was a success and forced the leaders to shift off their talking points. But for the most part, the leaders were stuck in the same stalemate that held sway the previous night . Pulses did not quicken to hear all leaders talk about the need to confront Donald Trump from “a position of strength.” The arguments and many of the lines were repeated from the previous night — and rarely bore repeating. Carney promised to double the rate of house building. Poilievre said the only thing that doubled on Justin Trudeau’s watch was prices, even though the former Liberal prime minister had also said he would double house building. Carney said Poilievre had spent his time railing against Trudeau and the carbon tax “and they’re both gone.” If you can pick a winner out of that, you’re probably a partisan. Poilievre has taken small bites out of Carney’s polling lead over the past week and the most likely explanation was the Conservatives’ focus on crime . The one time that he gathered momentum was in a discussion over his willingness to use the notwithstanding clause to impose consecutive life sentences on multiple murderers. In Thursday’s debate, Carney suggested using the clause was a slippery slope. “It’s not about where you start but where you stop,” he said. Poilievre’s response was visceral. “You don’t appreciate the chaos unfolding on our streets. People are living in terror because of the catch and release law (Liberal bill C-75),” he said. It is always hard to know what will be clipped and shared but if I was a Conservative, I’d be clipping that one. Despite his attacks on Carney, Singh spent almost as much time going after Poilievre, as if he’d been deputized by the Liberals. He said the Conservatives plan to save people $2,000 in tax cuts but will cost them tens of thousands of dollars by cutting child care, dental care and pharmacare (although Poilievre has not said he will cut any of those things). Yves-François Blanchet, the Bloc Québécois leader, occasionally chimed in from the sidelines with a caustic comment that was generally aimed at Carney. “You are a real Canadian leader,” he said at one point, “saying one thing in French and another in English,” in reference to Carney’s different statements on pipelines. But Blanchet doesn’t want Carney’s job — just a role for the Bloc in a minority. “You can’t be entitled to hold all the power in two hands without being checked by serious people,” he said. “I don’t want to be prime minister, but Quebec wants to be a responsible and collaborative partner.” That tells you all you need to know about the appetite for sovereignty in the province right now. As far as the impact on the broader election race, the debate was a nothingburger: there simply were no flashpoints that would justify anyone shifting their vote. For the Liberals, that is mission accomplished. National Post jivison@criffel.ca

• Ivison: Carney’s magic fades a little after French debate
• John Ivison: Why the NDP is losing the blue-collar vote to conservatives

Get more deep-dive National Post political coverage and analysis in your inbox with the Political Hack newsletter, where Ottawa bureau chief Stuart Thomson and political analyst Tasha Kheiriddin get at what’s really going on behind the scenes on Parliament Hill every Wednesday and Friday, exclusively for subscribers.  Sign up here .