The key takeaways from the French Liberal leadership debate

Playing null of undefined

Liberal leadership hopefuls face off in French-language debate: part 1 of 2

Liberal leadership hopefuls face off in French-language debate: part 2 of 2

The four remaining candidates in the race to replace Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as head of the Liberals squared off in the first of two debates Monday.

Former Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney, former deputy prime minister Chrystia Freeland, former government House leader Karina Gould — who resigned last month to run for the leadership — and former MP Frank Baylis went head-to-head for a two-hour debate in French in Montreal.

Moderated by former TVA-Quebec anchor Pierre Jobin, debate topics ranged from Canada-U.S. relations to the economy, affordability, housing, health care and climate action.

The candidates will square off again, also in Montreal, in English on Tuesday. The Liberals will choose their next leader on March 9.

Here are some key takeaways from the race’s only French debate.

‘Existential threat’: Candidates focused on Trump

As has been the case throughout the race, the candidates focused largely on U.S. President Donald Trump and the slate of tariffs he’s threatened to impose on Canadian goods.

While Canada’s in the midst of a 30-day reprieve from Trump’s 25 per cent across-the-board tariffs on all Canadian imports, and tariffs of 10 per cent on Canadian energy, the commander-in-chief said Monday the levies will be in place “on schedule” as of March 4, despite new border measures that have been implemented to address fentanyl and illegal migration.

Canada is also facing new tariffs on steel and aluminum starting March 12, and the potential for reciprocal tariffs in early April.

The entirety of the first round of the debate focused on the U.S. president, with three of the four contenders — Carney, Freeland and Gould — referencing him by name in their opening remarks.

Asked how they plan to diversify Canada’s trading relationships to rely less on the United States, Freeland called Trump the greatest threat to this country since World War II.

The former finance minister has tried to position herself as the best person to negotiate with Trump, saying several times throughout the campaign, and during the debate, that she “succeeded” in renegotiating NAFTA during the president’s first term.

During the debate she also referenced her work on Canada’s trade agreement with the European Union — known as CETA — as proof she can shore up relations with other countries than the United States. That agreement was signed in 2016 and has been in place since 2017, though not all member countries have ratified the deal.

Both she and Carney say they’d implement dollar-for-dollar retaliatory tariffs in response to Trump.

Carney, however, said the Trump of today is not the Trump of eight years ago, calling the president “more isolationist” and “more aggressive” during his second round in the White House.

Gould added that Trump respects strength, and the old methods for negotiating with him can’t be relied upon this time around. She said Canada needs someone calm who can deal with the “chaos” Trump creates.

Baylis, for his part, is proposing a new trade bloc made up of Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand in the hopes of becoming less reliant on the United States.

Debates stay calm and respectful

The tone of Monday’s debate stayed cordial and respectful throughout, with the four candidates often expressing agreement with each other’s thoughts and ideas.

From the carbon price to defence spending and immigration levels, the candidates often found themselves at least partially in agreement about the best path forward, rarely interrupting each other, even during the open debate periods.

Freeland also lent Carney a hand with his French on a couple occasions, suggesting to her longtime friend — and the godfather to one of her children — the proper translation for certain terms.

Carney, meanwhile, is well ahead in the race when it comes to fundraising, high-profile endorsements and polling. Plus, recent data shows the Liberals and the Conservatives would be neck-and-neck if Carney is chosen as the party’s next leader on March 9, closing the nearly two-year gap in public opinion polling.

Asked by reporters about the agreement on issues between candidates, Freeland called it “a really good thing.”

“A leadership race is very different from other political contests,” she said. “This is a race inside the family, inside our party, and it’s a really good thing that we agreed about very many things. And the thing that we agree on above all is that right now, (Conservative Leader) Pierre Poilievre cannot win the next election.”

Scott Reid, a CTV News political analyst and former communications director to former prime minister Paul Martin, said in an interview last week he’d be “watching keenly to see if they play with boxing gloves or with oven mitts” during the debates, considering the degree to which Carney appears to be ahead and the likely next prime minister.

“Nobody wants to be the clip that is used by your political opponent in the next general election, which shows you looking like you’re trying to spoil Mark Carney’s party,” Reid said. “You want to still be loyal to the Liberal cause, even as you seek to overcome his huge lead and become the next Liberal prime minister.”

It’s been widely speculated that whoever wins the race will try to seize on the party’s recent surge in popularity in the polls by calling a snap election.

Neither Carney nor Baylis have a seat in the House of Commons, so even if they become prime minister in less than two weeks’ time, they would not be able to participate in Parliament when the House returns at the end of March.

Asked by reporters following the debate about the prospect of heading into an early election, Carney wouldn’t directly say.

“We need to know what happens over the course of the next few weeks,” Carney said, referencing ongoing negotiations with the Americans and Trump’s tariff threats. “With respect to that, there are some circumstances, and I’ll let you use your imagination, where it may make sense to recall Parliament, or for Parliament to sit from (March) 24.”

“We will do the responsible thing if I’m elected leader. Of course we will,” he added. “It is more likely that the best thing for Canada is that the government has a strong and clear mandate sooner to take the necessary steps to build this country.”

Carney misspeaks about Hamas

One moment during the debate that garnered near-immediate reaction was during a question about Palestinian statehood, when — jumping off a point made by Baylis about helping to rebuild Palestinian civil society — Carney said in French: “We agree with Hamas.”

Freeland was quick to correct the former central banker’s statement, at which point he said: “We are against Hamas, and for a two-state solution.”

Conservatives were quick to criticize the comment online.

“Isn’t it important that a Prime Minister clearly communicate that Canada does NOT agree with Hamas?! Mark Carney isn’t that guy,” wrote Deputy Conservative Leader Melissa Lantsman on social media.

Conservative MP Michael Barrett echoed that sentiment on social media, writing: “A Prime Minister must be able to say Canada does NOT (agree with Hamas). Apparently he can’t.”

However, Liberal MP Anthony Housefather defended Carney, also writing in a post to social media that it’s “not easy to debate in a second language” and saying it was clear what the Liberal leadership hopeful meant to say.

“Disgusting to see people trying to pretend otherwise,” Housefather wrote.

Speaking to reporters after the debate, Carney said: “Hamas has no place ever in any future discussions.”

“I have to be clear, to be absolutely clear,” he said. “And I began my response with respect to the Middle East about the fundamental issue that all the hostages have to be returned to their families.”

After the debate, Freeland also defended Carney’s ability to speak French and said she interjected to clarify Carney’s comment on Hamas because it could have been a “dangerous moment” during the debate.

Questions about grocery prices

Another notable moment during the debate happened during the round on affordability and the cost of living.

While the candidates laid out their policy planks, specifically their plans to help Canadians weather the cost-of-living crisis, Jobin asked them all if they know the average cost of a week’s worth of groceries for a family of four in Quebec.

While Baylis quipped that he’s “not allowed to do the groceries at his house,” Freeland and Gould countered by saying they do the shopping for their households, and each spend about $200-250 a week.

“And I save more than my husband,” Freeland added.

Carney did not provide a guess.

Jobin responded that the average cost is $300 a week.

Contenders tackle Quebec-centric issues

The candidates also tackled some Quebec-focused topics during the debate, namely federal transfers to the provinces — which all four contenders insisted they would not decrease — and immigration levels. The latter has been a particular sticking point for Quebec Premier François Legault.

While Freeland has said immigration levels should be tied to housing, Carney said in a policy statement released Monday that he would cap immigration “until it can be returned to a sustainable trend.”

Baylis and Gould also said immigration levels have grown too high.

The Liberal leadership hopefuls were also asked about two controversial Quebec laws, Bills 21 and 96. The former is the province’s secularism law, which prohibits public servants from wearing religious symbols on the job, and the latter is its language law, which asserts that French is the official and common language of Quebec and seeks to increase its use in public and in workplaces.

When asked whether, as prime minister, they would intervene in Bill 96, no one would directly answer.

Freeland and Carney pointed instead to the importance of respecting and protecting French in Canada.

Gould said the Liberal Party of the Canada is the “party of the Charter,” and that the document should apply across the country.

Baylis wouldn’t say how he would address Bill 96, but called it “discriminatory,” specifically toward young francophones who want to learn English, the language of business.

When it comes to Bill 21, the province’s secularism law, Gould said she would support the Quebecers who are challenging it at the Supreme Court. Freeland agreed, saying she supports the Charter, and that “now is not the time for internal disagreements” in Canada.

Carney would not specifically say whether he’d intervene on the issue. Baylis said he’s been working to counter the law since its inception.

Carney calls east-west pipeline a possibility, but with provincial consent

During the debate, Carney was asked by Jobin to clarify conflicting comments he has made about the possibility of an east-west pipeline.

Speaking to supporters in Kelowna, B.C., last week, Carney said his government would use emergency powers to accelerate major projects. But in an interview with Radio-Canada, he said he would never impose a pipeline on Quebec.

In the debate, Carney called a project like Energy East a possibility due to the changing economic climate under Trump, but with consent from the provinces, including Quebec.

With files from CTV News’ Stephanie Ha and Rachel Aiello