海角社区官网

At the end of the two-hour program, Poilievre shook Carney’s hand and said, “thank you, enjoyed that.”

Over the course of two nights of French and English debates, Carney, the Liberal leader, tried to set out promises and to present a calmer, poised front, struggling to make his arguments short and pithy 鈥� a point he admitted onstage before plowing ahead in the face of a three-pronged attack, including from the separatist Bloc leader.

Carney, standing with the Conservative leader on his right and the New Democrat on his left, found himself immediately sparring with both.

That was especially the case with a more combative Poilievre than he’d debated the night before in French, while the NDP’s Jagmeet Singh took shots at both with accusations that they can’t be trusted to help regular people struggling with the cost of living.

At the outset, Poilievre demanded Carney repeal an “anti-pipeline” law that governs environmental impact assessments, and repeatedly shot barbs at Carney’s lengthy explanations about how to bolster the Canadian energy industry, saying the country needs “a change” so it can get energy to overseas markets, and not be forced to rely on U.S. buyers.

“How could you possibly think it’s a good idea to give the Americans a continued monopoly on our energy projects when you have seen how much these Liberal policies have weakened our country over the last decade?” Poilievre charged.

Singh interjected that the Liberals and Conservatives were competing over who could be the most pro-pipeline. The Liberals “built a pipeline. I don’t know what Pierre is complaining about,” said Singh, insisting what’s needed is an East-West electricity grid.

Carney insisted that Canada must confront President Donald Trump with “strength” but argued 鈥� as he has on the campaign trail 鈥� that Canada needs a “clear plan here at home to build this economy, to diversify our trading partners with like minded countries, and ... to have a position of strength in terms of our reaction to the U.S. unjustified tariffs.”

Poilievre and Carney agree that Ottawa should wield targeted counter-tariffs but Bloc Qu茅b茅cois Leader Yves-Fran莽ois Blanchet retorted Ottawa should fully retaliate with dollar-for-dollar tariffs. “Don’t be weak in front of Mr. Trump,” Blanchet admonished.

If Trump loomed large on the debate stage, so did Justin Trudeau, with Carney repeatedly pressed by Poilievre to explain how he is different from his predecessor, and Carney shooting back that the Conservative leader should get over it.

“I know it may be difficult. Mr. Poilievre, you spent years running against Justin Trudeau and the carbon tax ... They’re both gone,” Carney said. “I’m a very different person from Justin Trudeau.”

Poilievre and Blanchet openly mocked that claim, with Blanchet declaring聽the real question is whether Carney is “better” than Trudeau as prime minister.聽

“You say that you are a great crisis manager,” Blanchet said, alluding to Carney’s time as Bank of England governor when the United Kingdom exited the European Union. “As far as I know, Brexit happened even if you were against it,” Blanchet said, pivoting to attack Carney on his asset ownerships.

Poilievre asked viewers if they were prepared to “elect the same Liberal MPs, the same Liberal ministers, the same Liberal staffers, all over again for a fourth term?” He charged that Trudeau political staffers “are actually here with you at this debate in Montreal, writing the talking points that you are regurgitating into the microphone.”

“Oooh,” Carney said, smiling, adding, “I do my own talking points.”

One of the night鈥檚 more impassioned exchanges erupted over the Conservative plan to use the constitutional power to override the Charter of Rights to punish a range of violent crimes, including sentences for multiple murderers, with Poilievre unapologetic about resorting to a power that has never been used by any prime minister to immunize his proposed laws.

鈥淚 think it’s a very dangerous slope to override judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada,鈥� replied Carney. 鈥淚n 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,鈥� he said.

鈥淭he question here is not where you start,” said Carney. “It鈥檚 where will you stop?鈥�

Carney鈥檚 defence of the Charter drew a forceful response from Poilievre, who said he is out to protect law-abiding Canadians and victims, not repeat offenders who get out on bail and commit crimes and 鈥渢errorize our communities.

鈥淐anadians deserve to live in peace and security,鈥� said Poilievre.

鈥淚鈥檓 fighting for that as well,鈥� Carney countered, saying he would increase penalties for guns and gang crime, and resources for enforcement.

Singh condemned Poilievre鈥檚 inflammatory rhetoric, and objected to Poilievre’s聽statement 鈥� during a discussion about the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza 鈥� that the country must return to the “Canadian tradition” of newcomers leaving “foreign conflicts behind” when they come here.聽

Singh shot back that immigrants “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.”

At times, pressing questions, like what is the biggest security threat to Canada 鈥� got short shrift, forcing leaders to answer rapid-fire. Poilievre cited the 鈥渞ampant crime wave that is still running out of control鈥� and 鈥渋llegal gun crime.鈥� Carney said China represents the biggest security threat to the country, while Singh said cross-border traffic in guns and drugs, and what he claimed are 鈥渃uts鈥� to public safety services.

Poilievre聽said the Conservatives would approve natural gas projects on “national security grounds,” arguing exporting more of the fossil fuel would displace dirtier energy abroad, reduce greenhouse gas emissions globally and undercut Russia’s revenues in the war on Ukraine.

Carney, meanwhile, said he opposes government subsidies for the fossil fuel sector, and accused Poilievre of not having a climate plan.聽

In the end, the leaders did not appear before reporters to take further questions, after the debates commission said it could not ensure a proper environment for post-debate scrums. Commission director Michel Cormier refused to explain further, but the commission faced criticism for allowing Rebel News and a number of right-wing outlets to stack the microphones the night before.