Liberal leadership candidates Karina Gould, left and Mark Carney, right, speak with each other as Chrystia Freeland and Frank Baylis look on following their debate in Montreal on Feb. 25.Christinne Muschi/The Canadian Press
The four candidates for the Liberal Party leadership sparred during four hours of debate, first in French Monday and in English Tuesday, to argue why they’re the best option to lead the party and the country. Here are five takeaways from the exchanges between former central bank governor Mark Carney, former finance minister Chrystia Freeland, former House leader Karina Gould and businessman and former MP Frank Baylis.
Donald Trump’s ubiquity
U.S. President Donald Trump’s threats to Canada’s economy and sovereignty dominated the debates, with each candidate saying they are in the best position to deal with such an unpredictable neighbour.
Ms. Freeland said “Trump is the greatest challenge Canada has faced since the Second World War” and touted her experience dealing with him during his first term to renegotiate NAFTA. Mr. Carney countered that Mr. Trump is different this time around and put forward his experience managing the 2007-2008 financial crisis as the governor of the Bank of Canada. “Then his objective was to take more of our market,” he said. “Now he wants to take our country.”
Donald Trump says Mexico, Canada tariffs now set for April 2
Mr. Baylis called Mr. Trump a bully and said that, as a businessman, he was familiar with his type. He described Mr. Trump’s plans to impose hefty tariffs on Canadian imports, in particular energy, as empty threats and said the government needs to “call his bluff.” Ms. Gould said the U.S. depends on Canadian goods and that she would “make sure that we put everything on the table” to protect local industries.
Jabs at Pierre Poilievre
The four candidates spent considerable time Tuesday night looking past the Liberal leadership race to attack Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, often characterizing him as an admirer and imitator of Mr. Trump.
Ms. Freeland said Mr. Poilievre “actually agrees with Trump,” in that “they both say that Canada is broken.” She said the Conservative Leader “does not believe in affordable housing” and wants to impose cuts to the public health care system. Ms. Gould said she knows “how to stand up to people like Pierre Poilievre, who, when it comes to Donald Trump, would rather imitate him than stand up for Canada.”
Is the real Pierre Poilievre the one we saw on Flag Day, or the one we’ve known until now?
Mr. Carney said Mr. Poilievre is “the worst person to stand up to Donald Trump” because he “worships the man, he uses his language.” He also said it was irresponsible for Mr. Poilievre not to get a security clearance so he could be briefed on foreign interference matters, a process Mr. Carney said he has started. Mr. Baylis said he is “best suited to defeat Pierre Poilievre and expose him for exactly what he is: He’s a career politician who likes to make up slogans and nothing else.”
Defence spending and the Arctic front of mind
The issues of military spending and defence of the Arctic figured prominently and offered evidence of disagreement among the candidates Tuesday.
Ms. Gould and Ms. Freeland took issue with Mr. Carney’s position on defence spending. Under his leadership, the government would hit the NATO target of spending 2 per cent of GDP on defence by 2030, but the other candidates said they would do it faster.
Can Canada stop buying American as it beefs up defence?
“We have to actually make sure that we are investing here in Canada reaching those targets, because our country, our sovereignty, is under threat,” Ms. Gould said in pointing out Mr. Carney’s position. “The time to make those investments is now.” He responded by saying he’ll spend the money on Canadian procurement as fast as possible, calling it a “management thing.”
When her turn came, Ms. Freeland said defence spending is about will and the country should be working with its Nordic partners to protect the Arctic. “I don’t think any of us wants to be the leader who was asleep at the wheel and didn’t get Canada defended,” she said at a different point. She committed to reaching the 2-per-cent NATO target by 2027, as did Ms. Gould.
Mr. Baylis did not commit to a target, saying, “I don’t think that’s doable in an intelligent way.” He called, however, for better pay and benefits for the military and more investments in research and development.
Carbon pricing is out, more pipelines are in
With three of the four candidates expressing unmitigated support for building new pipelines and dropping carbon pricing, the Liberal Party appears poised to embrace the expansion of fossil fuel exploitation and scale back its commitments to climate action.
Ms. Freeland said Canada needs to “double down” on energy exports, and Mr. Baylis committed to building two new pipelines to get fossil fuel to the coasts. When asked about a potential resurrection of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport crude from Canada’s oil sands to U.S. refiners, both said this was good news. Mr. Carney said he would embark on cross-provincial “projects of national interest,” including building pipelines.
Candidates in the running to replace Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as Liberal leader laid out their plans to connect with Canadians and protect them from Trump threats. (Feb. 26)
The Canadian Press
The three of them also said they would abandon carbon pricing for consumers, which Mr. Carney said has become “too divisive.” Ms. Freeland walked a fine line, praising Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for putting a price on pollution but saying Canadians “didn’t think that policy worked for them.” Mr. Baylis said carbon pricing is “not working” and that he would “adapt it.”
Ms. Gould was an outlier on that front, calling carbon pricing a badly communicated policy that became an affordability issue. “I’m not going to abandon the fight against climate change because Pierre Poilievre is telling us to do that,” she said. “If you don’t have the price on pollution, you don’t have the rebate cheques that millions of Canadians depend on.”
She was non-committal on pipelines, simply saying that Canadians need to “have a conversation” about energy security.
Differing French fluency
The candidates’ differing levels of fluency in French underpinned Monday night’s debate. Mr. Baylis was the most comfortable in Quebec’s official language, followed closely by Ms. Gould. Both were able to articulate their ideas clearly, despite forgivable grammar mistakes. Ms. Gould said her command of French best positions her to spar with other federal leaders.
The two front-runners, for their part, spoke with a careful, slow and at times awkward rhythm, relying on rehearsed lines and highlighting a limited vocabulary. Ms. Freeland was hesitant on a few occasions but also capitalized on Mr. Carney’s gaffes, correcting him when he misspoke and completing a sentence when he searched for words.
After Monday’s debate, Mr. Carney said he nonetheless looks forward to debating Mr. Poilievre and Yves-François Blanchet, the Bloc Québécois Leader, in French if he wins the Liberal leadership.
On several occasions, Mr. Carney repeated that Canadians must be “masters in our own home” (maîtres chez nous in French). This reference to a campaign slogan promoting hydroelectric nationalization in the 1960s by former Quebec Liberal premier Jean Lesage, a key figure of the province’s Quiet Revolution, was an obvious appeal to the Liberals’ Quebec base.
Tuesday’s debate moved at a faster pace, with Ms. Freeland and Mr. Carney noticeably more comfortable in English, though all four candidates used some of the exact same phrases from Monday’s debate.