Five takeaways from Canada’s Liberal leadership debates

After consecutive debates in English and French, the candidates to replace Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as chief of the Liberal Party in Canada assembled their arguments to voters.

Liberals of card driving will now choose the former governor of Banks of Canada and England Mark Carney, former Minister of Finance Chrystia Freeland, the head of government of the Karina Gould chamber and the businessman and the ‘former deputy Frank Baylis.

The one who wins the vote on March 9 will become the next Prime Minister of Canada and will lead the Liberals in the next general elections, which is to take place on October 20 of this year.

A great goal of the debates was to know how Canada should react to the American president Donald Trump, who threatened steep prices on the neighbor in northern America and suggested that Canada becomes “51st state”.

Here are five major points to remember from the two debates on liberal leaders.

How Canada should react to what many have nicknamed an “existential threat” by US President Donald Trump has dominated the agenda in two debates.

Trump said he was planning to impose a 25% rate on all Canadian exports, with the exception of energy which would be a 10% lower tariff – a decision which, according to economists, would be devastating for Canada while increasing the prices of Americans.

He has also repeatedly proposed that the United States should annex Canada, which has met the alarm and the anger of large areas of the Canadian population.

Freeland, a former high -level minister who served during Trump’s first term, positioned himself as an experienced negotiator who fought – and won – against the American president and his previous prices.

But Carney warned that today’s asset was not the asset of the past. “He is more isolationist. He is more aggressive,” said Carney. “In the past, he wanted our markets. Now he wants our country.”

Gould, the youngest candidate, suggested that Canada should “put everything on the table” to protect its sovereignty and that the federal government should help companies diversify their portfolios to depend less on the United States.

Baylis, on the other hand, said that Canada should forge closer economic ties with the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia, saying that the four were countries with similar views with shared values, a culture and government systems.

Trump’s threats are made more alarming by Canada’s current economic situation.

The country’s GDP has decreased in the past year, as well as the value of the Canadian dollar, and the Canadians have expressed frustrations in the cost of very obstinate living.

Carney – A commerce economist – has concentrated a large part of his messages on this issue. He has promised a plan that would balance Canada’s operational budget in three years and proposed that Canada is rethinking the way it spends his money.

But he also noted his support for the main liberal programs, such as day care and affordable dental care.

As a former Minister of Finance, Freeland defended its history, saying that the country’s finances were still “very strong”. She added that Canada should capitalize on the wave of patriotism in the face of Trump’s threats, using this momentum to support Canadian industries and promote employment growth.

Baylis relied on his expertise as a businessman to say that Canada should work on the creation of its productivity.

Gould, on the other hand, said that the Liberal Party should be “realistic with Canadians” and that the budget balance in three years was not possible without significant cut, which it did not support. She said Canada should rather focus on “modernizing its social security net” to help those who have trouble.

“We are faced with extreme threats from the United States, so we must be able to invest in our employees and our companies to protect them,” said Gould.

The four candidates struggled with each other, but they often presented a united front against their common adversary, the leader of the Conservative Party Pierre Poilievre, whose party is favored in the ballot boxes as the most likely to form the next government of the government of Canada.

Hopes of liberal leadership have launched several shots on hairy throughout the debate. Gould called him “our little version of Trump here at home” while Freeland said that Hairyvre was trying to “imitate” Trump.

Carney criticized Hairy as “irresponsible” and added that Canada could “not afford” to have it as Prime Minister.

Hairyvre, who appreciated a considerable lead in the polls before an unpopular trudeau, had to rotate his argument to the Canadians since the resignation of Trudeau.

His message went from the criticism of the Prime Minister to exercise for having led a “broken” Canada to put “Canada first” in the face of threats from the United States. He also moved his goal towards the attack on Carney, which is favored to win the liberal leadership race.

Hairyvre always clashes on a national scale, but some polls suggest that the example between him and the Liberals has shrunk since the exit of Trudeau.

Responding to the change in American policy on the current war in Russia-Ukraine, the four candidates confirmed their commitment to continue Canada’s support in Ukraine.

All of them also supported the need for Canada to achieve its goal of 2% military spending as indicated in its commitments to the NATO alliance, although they did not agree on the chronology and how arrive.

Freeland said Canada is expected to achieve the goal by 2027 and should do so by investing in the “next generation of war”. Baylis and Carney said their plan would be that Canada achieved this goal by 2030.

Freeland and Carney said Canada should invest this money in Canadian military companies rather than in the United States.

Freeland noted that Canada should reduce its dependence on the United States and should seek to work with the EU and other NATO partners on security insurance.

A carbon tax for consumers and businesses was the cornerstone of Trudeau government policy on climate change.

But this tax proved unpopular to Canadians, forcing Carney and Freeland to promise that they would abandon politics.

Carney, a former United Nations Special Envoy on Action and Climate Finance, has long been a supporter of carbon tax. In the debates, however, he recognized that consumers’ tax had become a source of division and said that it would rather focus on major polluters and clean energy projects in Canada.

Freeland, who has resigned from the Trudeau government due to disagreement with the Prime Minister for Sperse, said history would consider its climate action favorably despite the unpopularity of its policies. But also, has sworn to remove the carbon tax.

“Democracy consists in listening to people, and Canadians were very clear with us that they did not think that this policy worked for them,” she said.

Gould and Baylis, on the other hand, said that they would keep a version of consumers’ tax on the carbon in place, saying that the fight against climate change has a price.