Skip to main content
Welcome to
super saver spring
offer ends april 20
save over $140
save over 85%
$0.99
per week for 24 weeks
Welcome to
super saver spring
$0.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe spars with NDP chief Jack Layton during the French-language leader's debate in Ottawa on April 13, 2011.

CHRIS WATTIE/Reuters

On Tuesday, when federal party leaders squared off in English, the exchange between Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe was an invitation for a bathroom break.

On Wednesday, when the leaders went at it in French, Mr. Layton and Mr. Duceppe were practically the main event.

It's an effect of gearing one of the two debates almost exclusively toward Quebec - a format that could usefully be revisited in future campaigns - that Mr. Duceppe, the leader of a party with no chance (and no aim) of ever forming government, gets to spend an evening as the de facto incumbent. And it's a worrying reflection on the state of federal politics in that province that it was the other leader with no realistic chance of winning power who looked like Mr. Duceppe's biggest concern.

Story continues below advertisement

Give Mr. Layton his due. The NDP Leader is not only a sharp debater; when he's on his game, he comes off like a passionate defender of social values. On Tuesday, he came off too insubstantial - hurting his credibility with an offensive line about "crooks" in the Senate, and an embarrassing stab at youth jargon. On Wednesday, he kept the glibness to a relative minimum and seemed more sincere for it.

But know, too, that Mr. Layton has a big advantage when he's speaking to Quebec: He can straddle the line between federalism and nationalism, without having to worry about keeping the country together if and when he's in power. As a result, Mr. Duceppe's attempts to draw him offside on articles of faith - including, repeatedly, on language rights - don't really get anywhere. So Mr. Layton seemed to make the most headway toward courting the soft nationalist vote he needs for an eventual Quebec breakthrough.

Michael Ignatieff, too, was better on this night than he was on the previous one. The Liberal Leader was less obviously driven by talking points, quicker to respond to his opponents' jibes, and more eager to speak about his platform. He may well have come off the winner to viewers (probably few and far between) in the rest of the country. But he struggled to strike the right balance on matters of Quebec's role within Canada, winding up simultaneously distancing himself from Pierre Trudeau and saying Quebec should be happy with its current place in the federation - a recipe to make nobody happy.

As for Stephen Harper, the Conservative Leader was the most unchanged performer from night to night. Although slightly testier on Wednesday, his main objective seemed to be to escape unscathed, which he mostly did. Evidently under no illusion that his path to victory is through Quebec, Mr. Harper appeared intent on avoiding anything that could cause him trouble in the rest of the country.

If anything, Mr. Harper seemed to be playing to a purely federalist audience - warning, in a particularly strong moment, that handing power to the other parties would mean a return to the constitutional squabbling of yore. It was a line that probably wounded Mr. Ignatieff the most. And so, on this night, it really didn't matter too much at all.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies