MONTREAL — The federal government must not deal with Donald Trump the way it did before, agreed Liberal candidates vying to replace Justin Trudeau, as they sparred over who is best suited to deal with the biggest threat to Canada’s economic security.
The U.S. president was not on stage, but he was front and centre throughout the two-hour, French-language confrontation between the four remaining Liberal candidates, as they took occasional aim at the Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre but directed most of their barbs at Trump and his aggression towards Canada.
The first direct faceoff of the leadership race also included discussions that ranged from how to beef up Canada’s military, to whether to build east-west pipelines, to whether candidates support a planned high-speed rail super-project.
And it was a test of French capabilities for the candidates vying to replace Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, with perceived front-runner Mark Carney stumbling at times to get points across and find the right words, while his opponents conversed in a more fluid though accented French.
Carney was also clear — in an exchange with reporters after the debate — that he intends to run for office even if he loses the Liberal leadership. He also said that, if he replaces Trudeau as prime minister after the race ends March 9, he’s “more likely” to call an election to seek a “strong and clear mandate sooner” — raising the prospect of a snap election even before Parliament is set to return from prorogation on March 24.
The four candidates on stage Monday discussed Trump’s tariff threats and talk of annexing Canada and each made the case for how best to confront him, including through shared proposals to expand trade with other countries and to remove economic barriers within Canada.
Carney, the former central banker who navigated the 2008-09 global financial turmoil and Britain’s exit from the European Union, presented himself as a crisis manager fit for this moment, while former finance minister Chrystia Freeland claimed to be the best defender of Canada’s interests based on her track record during the NAFTA renegotiations and in staring down Trump when the Trudeau government retaliated against U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminum.
Yet her opponents were quick to argue that Trump has evolved into a more menacing threat.
“Trump today is not the same as before,” Carney said. “He is more unilateralist, more isolationist, and more aggressive than before. He wants part of our markets. Now he wants our country.”
Later, in suggesting he would support an East-West oil pipeline if provinces agreed, Carney called the U.S. “our neighbour, no longer our friend.”
Gould also argued the same approach with Trump won’t work this time around, but drew a contrast with Carney in her insistence that provincial jurisdictions had to be respected — a point she hammered when it came to a range of debate topics, like health or dealing with crime.
Each candidate also took shots at the Liberals’ domestic opponent, Poilievre, with Freeland calling him too “weak” to confront Trump. Gould called him “our version of Trump,” and alleging the Conservative party would cave to the American leader. And Carney said Poilievre “admires Trump, so can’t negotiate with him.”
Carney also accused Poilievre of planning cuts to federal programs, and questioning his ability to lead, calling the Conservative “a bad person at the worst moment for the Canadian economy.”
Montreal-area businessman and former MP Frank Baylis, meanwhile, leaned on his professional dealings, saying he’s signed hundreds of contracts with Americans and has encountered “characters” like Trump, adding the only way to deal with him is to stand firm and deny his demands .
But outside of policy, many questions directed at the candidates after their debate related to Carney’s French — delivered in a stilted, at-times unclear cadence that contrasted with Freeland’s, Gould’s and Baylis’s more fluent delivery.
At one point, while stating that Canada should set out red lines in negotiations with Trump, Carney started to say Canada must protect its “culture” and “water” — then fumbled the final phrase until Freeland jumped in to help him find the right words for “supply management” in French — a system of quotas for dairy, egg and poultry that is politically sensitive in Quebec.
Later in the debate, TVA network moderator Pierre Jobin told Carney he had ”vingt secondes” to answer a question, and when Carney asked him to repeat himself, Jobin responded in English: “20 seconds.”
At another point, Carney struggled to interject on the Middle East, stumbling as he said he “agreed with Hamas,” the terrorist organization based in Gaza. That prompted Freeland to clarify, “we don’t agree with Hamas,” as Carney quickly corrected himself.
After the debates, Freeland told reporters it was a “dangerous” moment for the Liberals, and that she jumped in knowing that Carney — a longtime friend — doesn’t support Hamas. Conservative spokesperson Sebastian Skamski, however, pounced on the slip-up, declaring in a statement that Carney “can’t articulate himself on something as simple enough as not agreeing with Hamas.”
With Carney ‘s fundraising haul outstripping those of his opponents, and more endorsements from Liberal MPs and cabinet ministers, Conservatives are already running attacks against him, labelling him “sneaky” over his plan to change federal budgeting to balance one part of the federal books, and to eliminate the current consumer carbon price while leaving the industrial pricing system in place.
On stage Monday night, however, Carney’s opponents often agreed with him and refrained from taking obvious shots to knock him off course. Instead, they each highlighted their own perceived strengths and made the case for their own policy positions.
On foreign affairs, Baylis was the only candidate to argue that Canada needs to show “moral leadership” by recognizing a state of Palestine, which he argued is the surest path to a durable peace between Israel and Palestinians. He also quibbled with the confidence of his opponents when they discussed removing trade barriers between provinces, saying it’s more reasonable to focus on making it easier to move natural gas and electricity across the country while working longer term on more liberalized trade within Canada.
Throughout the debate, the candidates attempted to distinguish their approach to governing from the way the Trudeau government has acted, especially when it came to immigration levels. All agreed the Liberals had set immigration targets too high when housing supply and Canada’s health system could not keep up.
Gould said “we have to be honest with Canadians” and admitted the government had been “too ambitious.” Freeland said “as prime minister, I’d make a link between immigrants and housing.”
Carney, challenged by the moderator over why he would maintain levels at a time when Quebec has expressed a desire to limit immigration, said, “there were mistakes … that’s clear. I’m here for change.”
But there were policy differences on display, including over the Trudeau government’s consumer carbon tax-and-rebate system. Gould, the sole candidate clearly promising to keep the levy that Conservatives lampoon as ineffective, said she’d freeze it at current levels, arguing the problem is that Canadians need an affordability plan.
As a mother, “I can’t let the planet burn,” Gould said.
Freeland countered that Canadians no longer support the policy, and that while climate action is necessary, she argued the party must defeat the Conservatives in the next election. Both Freeland and Carney have promised to replace the consumer carbon price, with Carney outlining a plan to get heavy industries to pay for green incentives for households.
On defence, Gould and Freeland noted that they are promising to increase spending faster than Carney. They each say they’d spend the equivalent of two per cent of Canada’s economic output on defence by 2027, while Carney is aiming for that target by 2030.
The former central banker defended his time frame, arguing that he’ll go faster if he can, but that Canada must switch how it spends this money so less of it goes to the American defence industry at a time when the U.S. president is threatening Canada.
Gould and Baylis also exchanged sharp words at one point when Baylis asserted that street crime levels “start with homelessness.” Gould accused him of blaming homeless people.
But nearly all topics came down to what was best for the economy in these troubled times, including high-speed rail. Carney did not clearly commit funds, saying he did not have Trudeau’s “figures” at hand. But he speculated it would likely require public and private funds, saying “If the project is correct, probably the government would support the project a little.”
The others voiced fuller support.
The candidates are set to return to the same stage Tuesday night at 8 p.m. EST for the English-language debate.
