MONTREAL—Had the Quebec campaign not taken place in the dog days of the summer television season, Quebecor’s TVA network might not have so generously opened up three prime-time spots to one-on-one debates between the main provincial leaders.

Be that as it may, the only downside to making the practice a standard feature of all future campaigns would be the potential loss of commercial revenue to the networks involved.

For the voters, the opportunity to see the leaders confront their visions in a variety of venue was a win-win.

There were four debates and they were held on consecutive nights last week with the first — broadcast by Radio-Canada and Télé-Québec — featuring the larger format that Canadians are familiar with.

Many expected viewer fatigue to set in along the way. But on average, 1.5 million people tuned in for every single debate.

Others predicted that the traditional multi-leader model would not withstand the comparison with three potentially more intense face-offs.

In fact, the two formats ended up serving different but equally useful purposes.

Québec Solidaire’s Françoise David was the top star of Sunday’s four-way debate. Without her input, issues such as the environment and social justice might have fallen completely by the wayside.

A diversity of voices is essential to a healthy parliamentary process. Post-debate, there was a large consensus that David’s debate contribution had added value to the exercise and that she would be a welcome addition to the National Assembly.

At the end of the day though, Québec Solidaire is not in contention for government on Sept. 4. Common sense suggests that the three would-be premiers should be held to a higher standard than the co-leader of a distant third party.

The three one-on-one debates provided a rare opportunity to do just that.

From a voter’s perspective, it was a sobering experience.

Every leader wasted a lot of minutes on inside baseball.

The level of personal animosity between them often ran uncomfortably high.

But content managed to make enough appearances to influence the outcome of this fluid campaign.

If, for instance, the Parti Québécois fails to win an election that was the party’s to lose a only a few weeks ago, it will be because the substance of Pauline Marois’ performance raised more questions than it provided answers.

Of all the leaders, Marois alone dispensed with costing her platform prior to the debates, a singular omission for a contender whose game plan involved casting herself as the only ready-for-prime time alternative to the ruling Liberals.

She also got herself tangled up in the sticky web of her referendum strategy, claiming almost in the same breath that her plan to introduce citizen-initiated referendums would have allowed Quebecers to force Charest’s hand on an inquiry into corruption two years ago but that it would not force a PQ government to hold a referendum on sovereignty.

But the others were not perfect either.

Under fire, Coalition Avenir Québec leader François Legault struggled to connect some of his policy dots. And Liberal leader Jean Charest’s feisty demeanour did not completely dispel the widespread impression that he is running on empty.

In the larger format of a multi-leader debate, it is easier to paper over such cracks than in one-one-one duels.

Should the Quebec experiment be exported on to the federal scene? Is it even practical to try to replicate it on that larger scale?

The answer to the first is a definitive yes. Over the past week Quebec voters gained valuable insights into the choices on offer. It is clearer that whoever wins on Sept. 4 will lead the province into choppy waters of one sort or another.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

All Canadians would benefit from having the same tire-kicking opportunity in the next federal campaign.

That being said, it is one thing to stage four debates over the course of a five-week provincial campaign and another to hold four in each of French and English (for a total of eight) in the equally short time of a federal one.

But that could easily be overcome by holding half of three 90-minutes one-on-one encounters in each official language.

Read more about: