Five conclusions of Canada’s liberal leadership debates

After consecutive debates in English and French, candidates to replace Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as leader of the Liberal Party in Canada have presented their case to voters.

The liberals of retention of letters will now choose between the former governor of the banks of Canada and England Mark Carly, the former finance minister, Chrystia Freeland, the leader of the Government of the House of Representatives, Karina Gould, and the businessman and the former former Deputy Frank Baylis.

Whoever 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 must be held on October 20 of this year or before.

A great approach to debates has been how Canada should respond to the president of the United States, Donald Trump, who has threatened pronounced tariffs in the northern neighborhood of the United States and has suggested that Canada becomes the “State 51”.

Here are five great conclusions of the two liberal leadership debates.

The way in which Canada should respond to what many have called an “existential threat” by the president of the United States, Donald Trump, has dominated the agenda in both debates.

Trump has said that he plans to impose a 25% rate on all Canadian exports, with the exception of the energy that would be argued with 10% lower, a movement that economists say it would be devastating for Canada while increasing prices for Americans.

He has also repeatedly proposed that the United States must annex Canada, which has encountered alarm and anger of great stripes of the Canadian population.

Freeland, a former superior minister who served during Trump’s first mandate, positioned himself as an experienced negotiator who has fought and won against the president of the United States and his previous tariffs.

But Carney warned that today’s Trump was not the Trump of the past. “It’s more isolationist. It’s more aggressive,” said Carney. “In the past we wanted our markets. Now we want our country.”

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

Meanwhile, Baylis said that Canada needed to forge the closest economic ties with the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia, saying that the four were related ideas countries with shared values, culture and government systems.

Trump’s threats become more alarming because of Canada’s current economic situation.

The GDP of the country has been reduced in the last year, together with the value of the Canadian dollar, and the Canadians have expressed frustrations about the stubborn high cost of living.

Carney, an economist by trade, focused on much of his messages on this issue. He promised a plan that would balance Canada’s operational budget in three years and proposed that Canada reconsider the way in which his money spends.

But it has also noticed its support for key liberal programs, such as affordable child care and dental care.

As a former finance minister, Freeland defended his history, saying that the country’s finances were still “very strong.” He added that Canada should capitalize on the increase in patriotism against Trump’s threats, using that impulse to support Canadian industries and promote employment growth.

Baylis was based on his experience as a businessman to say that Canada should work to develop his productivity.

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

“We face extreme threats from the United States, so we have to be able to invest in our people and in our businesses to protect them,” Gould said.

The four candidates were discussed with each other, but often presented a united front against their shared opponent, the leader of the Pierre Poilievre Conservative Party, whose party is favored in surveys as the most likely to form the next Canada government.

Liberal leadership applicants threw several blows to Pailievre throughout the debate. Gould called him “our little version of Trump here at home,” while Freeland said Pailievre was looking to “imitate” Trump.

Carney criticized Pailievre as “irresponsible” and added that Canada “could not afford” to have him as a prime minister.

Pailievre, who has enjoyed a considerable advantage in the surveys before an unpopular Trudeau, has had to turn his tone to Canadians since Trudeau’s resignation.

His message changed criticizing the acting prime minister for leading a “broken” Canada to put “Canada first” against the threats of the United States. He has also changed his approach to attacking Carney, who is favored to win the liberal leadership career.

Poilievre is still surveying ahead at the national level, but some surveys suggest that the leadership between him and the liberals has been reduced since Trudeau’s exit.

Responding to change the American politics about the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, the four candidates affirmed their commitment to continue the support from Canada to Ukraine.

All of them also supported the need for Canada to reach their 2% military spending objective as established in their commitments with the NATO alliance, although they did not agree on the timeline and how to get there.

Freeland said Canada should achieve the goal by 2027, and should do so by investing in the “next generation of war.” Baylis and Carney have said that their plan would be for Canada to reach that goal by 2030.

Both Freeland and Carney said that Canada needed to invest that money in Canadian military companies instead of in the United States.

Freeland said that Canada should reduce its dependence on the US. And should seek to work with the EU and other NATO members in security guarantees.

A carbon tax for consumers and companies has been the cornerstone of Trudeau’s government policy on climate change.

But that tax has proven unpopular with the Canadians, forcing Carney and Freeland to promise that they would abandon politics.

Carney, a former UN special envoy on climatic action and finance, has long been a carbon tax defender. However, in the debates, he acknowledged that the consumer tax had become divisive and said it would focus on taxing large contaminators and growing clean energy projects in Canada.

Freeland, who renounced the Trudeau government due to disagreements with the Prime Minister of Expenditure, said history would judge its climate action favorably despite the unpopularity of its policies. But she also promised to discard carbon tax.

“Democracy is about listening to people, and the Canadians were very clear with us who did not believe that politics worked for them,” he said.

Gould and Baylis, on the other hand, said they would maintain a version of the consumer tax on carbon instead, saying that fighting climate change has a price.