He was loud. He interrupted. He was repetitive and, at times, even out of breath. But in the end, Justin Trudeau was the most effective performer in last night’s leaders’ debate on the economy.

Stephen Harper and Thomas Mulcair may have demonstrated their mastery of the economic issues, but Trudeau was the only one able to explain in simple terms what he wanted to do and why, repeating time and again that he had a plan for the future. If the polls are right and a staggering 69 per cent of Canadians are looking for change on Oct. 19, then Trudeau made the most convincing argument that his policies would be different.

Mulcair, whose NDP has led in several recent polls, put on a decent performance, making cutting remarks (primarily at Trudeau’s expense). Somehow, his vision statement was less clear. By promising to run balanced budgets like the Conservatives, Mulcair has tried to immunize the New Democrats against accusations that they would be big spenders and raise taxes — but this strategic decision has put him in the awkward position of being a reluctant Harper ally when it comes to deficits.

Somehow, Mulcair’s plan to raise corporate taxes, fund a national child care program and raise the federal minimum wage while promising not to run a deficit didn’t quite sing. Trudeau’s talking points, which he has down pat, resonated better. Yes, he would run deficits for three years, investing the money in infrastructure to improve rapid transit, roads, etc. Taxes would be raised on the top one per cent of earners but the money would go to reduce the taxes of the middle class. A left-light sort of approach — one you’d expect from the NDP, not the Liberals.

As for Harper himself, he was on home turf in more ways than one. The debate was staged in Calgary and the subject matter — the economy — was an area the prime minister sees as his strong point. Though he clearly enjoyed watching Mulcair and Trudeau go after each other as he stood by and tried to look prime ministerial, he was clearly on the defensive when their attention turned to him — forcing him to concede that the state of the Canadian economy is “not great” and to dismiss concerns about the real estate bubble in Vancouver and Toronto, claiming it as a sign of a strong economy.

Trudeau’s combative stance may not please people who believe in a more measured approach to issues, but it’s the approach he has been forced to take to reassert himself as a contender in the race to lead the country. Trudeau’s combative stance may not please people who believe in a more measured approach to issues, but it’s the approach he has been forced to take to reassert himself as a contender in the race to lead the country.

He was consistent, at least, in arguing that zero deficits mean lower taxes. He tried to present himself as the only adult in the room, musing that life as prime minister has forced him to contend with one crisis after another.

He also made the single most outrageous statement of the evening. In a discussion of the Syrian refugee crisis, Harper said that “those guys (Trudeau and Mulcair) would have in the last two weeks thrown open our borders to hundreds of thousands people coming in without security checks or documentation.”

It was a lie, one which Trudeau forcefully denied, accusing Harper of pandering to people’s fears. He was right.

As for the format of the debate, run by The Globe and Mail, it was pretty awful. Moderator David Walmsley, The Globe and Mail’s editor-in-chief, must have attended a tee-ball training camp to brush up on his questioning skills. Everything was slow-pitch. There were no pointed questions. No call for Mulcair to justify his dodgy budget promises. No criticism of Harper’s evisceration of the tax system with boutique tax credits designed to curry votes from chunks of the electorate. No aggressive questioning of Trudeau on why Harper’s deficits over the past six years were bad but future Liberal deficits would be good.

Mulcair is clearly the most expert debater of the lot — but his performance was also the most perplexing. He had wiped off that weird perma-smile he wore in in the first debate but was still making an obvious effort not to look angry. He threw in the most personal comments of the three leaders, reminding the audience he was the second of 10 children, that his wife was an immigrant, that one of his sons is a police officer. And yet it all made him look a little like Harper in a cardigan: uncomfortable.

Mulcair did indulge his testier side, taking did a few potshots at Trudeau, accusing him of using a shell company for his speaking fees and of flip-flopping on deficits.

As in the first debate, Trudeau took an aggressive stance from the start, asking Canadians whether they feel as if they’re better off now than they were when Harper came to power 10 years ago. “If you think things are great, then Harper is your guy.” This combative stance may not please people who believe in a more measured approach to issues, but it’s the approach Trudeau has been forced to take to reassert himself as a contender in the race to lead the country.

Remember that the Liberal Party leader started out this endless election campaign threatening to become the Michael Ignatieff of 2015. But he has defied these low expectations, crawling his way back into a virtual three-way tie with his main opponents. Last night’s performance didn’t do him any harm.

Alan Freeman is a Senior Fellow at the University of Ottawa’s Graduate School of Public and International Affairs. He came to the U of O from the Department of Finance, where he served as assistant deputy minister of consultations and communications. Alan joined the public service in 2008 after a distinguished career in journalism as a parliamentary reporter and business journalist for The Canadian Press, The Wall Street Journal and The Globe and Mail. At the Globe, he spent more than 10 years as a foreign correspondent based in Berlin, London and Washington.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.