Five Takeaways from Canadian Leadership Debates

After the debates of the repetition of English and French, the candidates would replace the Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as a leader of the Liberal Party in Canada.

Liberals holding the card currently select between the former governor of Canadian banks and England Mark Chrystia Freystia Freeteland and business and business MP Frank Baylis.

Anyone wins the vote on 9 March can be the next Prime Minister of Canada and lead liberals in the future general election, which should be held on or before the year.

A large focus of debates is how Canada responds to President Donald Trump, threatening the dissolved tariffs of the northern American neighbor and suggested that Canada becomes “51st State.”

Here are five big trips from two Liberal leadership debates.

How canada respond to what most commonly referred to a “existing threat” from US Donald Trump president has no agenda in two debates.

Trump said he plans to impose a 25% tariff on all Canadian exports, except Canada’s intense start while the chariots are increasing.

He also repeated that the US must be Annex Canada, met with alarm and anger from many Swathes in the Canadian population.

Freeland, a former chief minister served in Trump’s first term, sets himself as an experienced negotiator who fights – and win the US president and his past tariffs.

But Carney warned that Trump today is not the Trump of the past. “He is more than isolationist. He is more aggressive,” says Carney. “He used to like our markets. Now he wants our country.”

Gould, the youngest candidate, suggest that Canada should “put everything on the table” to protect businesses of different portfolios.

However, Baylis said, need to force more relations with the UK, New Zealand and Australia, all the combined values, cultural systems, and government systems.

Trump’s threats are more alarming in today’s current economic situation.

The GDP of the country has worsened last year, with Canadian dollar amount, and Canadians declare failures to restrictive costs.

CARNEY – an economist by trade – focuses on most of his message on this issue. He promised a plan to balance Canada’s budget surgery in three years and suggested that Canada seeks to spend on its money.

But he also knows his support for the main liberal programs, such as cheap child care and teeth care.

As the former financial minister, Freeland defends his track record, saying that the country’s finances “are very strong”. He added that Canada should capitalize on the patriotism in front of Trump threats, using Canadian development enthusiasm.

Baylis strikes his skill as a businessman who says Canada has to work on building productivity.

Gould, on the other hand, said the Liberal Party must be “realistic to Canadians” and that the budget of the two years’ budget can not have no significant cut, which he does not support. He said Canada should focus on “modern social safety in the net” to help the struggles.

“We are faced with extreme threats from the US, so we have to invest our people and our businesses to protect them,” says Gould.

The four candidates debate each other but they often present a united front against their shared Pierre Pierre Pierre Piyofre, whose party-favored polls is the most likely to form the Canadian polls.

Hoping Liberal leadership hopes many Jabs in Pilivre throughout the debate. Gould he calls him “Our little version of Trump here at home” While Freeland said Piyevre looked at “Sumungia” Trump.

Carney criticizes Piilivre as “unreliable” and added that Canada can “no” he will have a prime minister.

Piilivre, who enjoyed a large lead of polls ahead of an unpopular tradeau, had to give his pitch to Canadians since Truedeau.

His message has changed from criticism of the principal principal for preceding a “Broken” Canada to put “Canada first” despite the threats from the US. He also changed his focus on Carney attack, preferred to win Liberal leadership race.

Piilivre continued to promote ahead, but some polls suggested that the lead between him and the liberals were worse since Trudeau came out.

Responding to US policy shift in the continued Russian War-Ukraine, all four candidates confirm their commitment to Canadian support for Ukraine.

Tanan sila usab nagpaluyo sa panginahanglan alang sa Canada nga maigo ang 2% nga target sa paggasto sa militar nga gipahimutang sa mga pasalig niini sa Alliance niini, bisan kung dili sila mouyon sa timeline ug kung unsaon pag-adto didto.

Freelanda said it should hit the target of 2027, and should do it by investing in “next generation of war”. Baylis and Carney say their plan for Canada to reach the target of 2030.

Both freeland and carney that Canada should invest that money in Canadian military activities instead of in the US.

Freeland is found that Canada should reduce its confidence in the US, and should look at EU work and other security partners with security securities.

A carbon tax for consumers and businesses is the stone corner of the Trudeau government policy in climate change.

But that tax proves unpopular to Canadians, forcing Carney and Freeland to promise they will face policy.

Carmney, a former special Envoy of the UN in climate movement and finance, has long been a carbon tax proponent. However, in debates, he acknowledged the taxes of consumers became divided, and said that he would refer to large Canadian polluters.

Freeland, who resigns Trudeau’s government for the misunderstanding of the Prime Minister to spend, said the history of his policies. But he also, swore to scrap carbon tax.

“Democracy is about listening to people, and Canadians are very clear to us without thinking that the policy works for them,” he said.

Gould and Baylis, on the other hand, said they would hide some version of the carbon consumer tax, saying that the climate change comes in a price.