It took more than three weeks for Justin Trudeau to find out why he is calling an election. To hear him, the dominant question of this election is: how to end the pandemic?
Between the more than 80% of Canadians who have done their duty by being vaccinated and the “pack” of opponents of vaccination and other “hesitant”, he has clearly chosen his camp and accuses his opponents of taking refuge in an artistic vagueness .
The Liberal leader has been more disciplined than in the debate last week, but arguably more effective. His opponent was well identified: whether it was daycare centers or “two-tier medicine”, he first targeted Erin O’Toole. The only time he got out of hand was when he felt that the leader of the Bloc Québécois was questioning his Quebecoism.
Last Thursday, the Conservative leader was able to get away with red herring. This time, he had to admit that Quebec will have to put aside the $ 6 billion that the Trudeau government has promised to pay it for child care. We wonder on what basis he will be able to “collaborate” with the Legault government in this matter.
When asked if he was willing to let the better-off seek treatment faster, he clearly avoided the question.
Yves-François Blanchet, always effective in debates, was equal to himself: precise and scathing, but without pouring into arrogance. It was quite tasty to hear him say, smiling, that one of the segments of the debate between him and Mr. Trudeau was “a cordial exchange rather than a confrontation.”
One had the impression that Alexandre Boulerice had smoked it good when he said he believed that the NDP could elect from six to ten deputies. Jagmeet Singh’s performance is unlikely to allow him to reach such an ambitious goal.
At the start of the evening, many must have wondered what Annamie Paul, who has not left her riding since the start of the campaign, was doing there. They still had to wonder after the debate.