Key Takeaways From the French Liberal Leadership Debate

Liberal Party of Canada leadership candidates Mark Carney, left to right, Chrystia Freeland, Karina Gould and Frank Baylis take part in the French-language Liberal Leadership debate in Montreal on Feb. 24, 2025. The Federal Liberals will pick a new leader on March 9. Christinne Muschi/The Canadian Press

News Analysis

It’s fair to say that the Liberal leadership candidates agree on far more than they disagree on.

The four candidates took part in their first debate in French on Feb. 24 in Montreal. The term “debate” is arguable, however, with no real back and forth, zero zingers or hot takes, and no attempt by any participant to distinguish themselves with bold policies.

There was also no real attempt to challenge former central banker Mark Carney, who is leading the race in fundraising and endorsements by a large margin.

Liberal MP and former cabinet minister Chrystia Freeland defended the friendly atmosphere among participants when speaking with reporters after the debate.

“A leadership race is very different from other political contests,” Freeland 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, Pierre Poilievre cannot win the next election.”

For Freeland, the family analogy is almost literal, with Carney being a longtime friend and the godfather to one of her children.

“Almost too close, it sounded like,” Carney joked with reporters after being questioned on their friendship.

Asked about whether that close relationship is a hindrance to challenging some of Freeland’s positions, Carney said that “first off, there are areas of agreement.” Secondly, he said, “to be clear, I just became a politician.”

French in Question

Freeland at one point came to Carney’s rescue when he misspoke while answering a question about the Israel-Palestine conflict and said “we agree with Hamas.” Freeland cut him off and said “we do not agree with Hamas, but regarding Hamas,” to which Carney concurred.

This led to a reporter’s question about whether Carney’s French is good enough to go toe-to-toe in a debate with Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet and Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre. Quebec is an important base for the Liberal Party and is closely tied to its electoral successes.

“I look forward to having a debate with Yves-François Blanchet and Pierre Poilievre dans la langue français,” Carney said mixing both languages and not conjugating “langue française” (French language) properly.

As a further indication that leadership candidates aren’t in the business of scoring political points against each other, the sole candidate from Quebec, businessman and former Quebec Liberal MP Frank Baylis was asked whether he thinks Carney’s French is good enough to debate with Blanchet and Poilievre. He didn’t take the opportunity.

Baylis avoided commenting on Carney’s French at all, instead saying he believes “all candidates, myself included, are excellent.”

“I would be very happy if I won and I wouldn’t be sad if someone else won,” Baylis told reporters after the debate.

Policy Drivers

With Prime Minister Justin Trudeau having announced his intention to resign, the leadership candidates are not just vying to head the party, but also to become prime minister.

Yet, this top prize did not generate much debate energy, with candidates instead targeting their attacks against Poilievre and U.S. President Donald Trump. Meanwhile, much of the Liberal leadership candidates’ policies presented at the debate were derived from the policies of these two politicians.

For example, Liberal MP and former minister Karina Gould, Freeland, and Carney had all been strong proponents of the carbon tax while in cabinet, or advising cabinet. Poilievre has campaigned on “axing” the tax for some time. Now, all the Liberal candidates say the policy needs a modification to varying degrees.

Poilievre has also criticized the Liberal government for “breaking” Canada’s immigration system. All candidates now say mistakes were made on immigration.

Baylis said immigration is a good thing but there has been a “loss of control.” Carney has proposed capping immigration for a certain time to return to balance. Freeland said immigration levels must be linked to housing and services, a measure first proposed by Poilievre. Gould said the government has been “too ambitious” with its immigration targets.

On defence, Trump’s talk of making Canada the “51st state” has seemingly motivated Canadian politicians to boost Arctic sovereignty and reach NATO’s defence spending guideline sooner. Ottawa’s current plan is to reach 2 percent of GDP spending on defence by 2032.

Carney and Gould said Canada needs more military bases in the Arctic. Freeland said Canada cannot rely on the United States for its defence, arguing Trump “threatens our sovereignty.” She said with Trump eyeing control of Greenland, Canada must work more closely with Denmark, and with nuclear powers France and the United Kingdom.

Liberal candidates have also recently expressed varying degrees of support for building cross-country pipelines. Quebec has been opposed to the idea, and Baylis said a discussion must be had with the province, saying the alternative of using ships can lead to spills in the St. Lawrence River or the use of railways to deadly accidents like that of Lac-Mégantic in 2013.

Candidates will meet for a second debate in Montreal on Feb. 25, this time in English.

Voting for the leadership contest opens on Feb. 26 and the new leader will be announced on March 9. Parliament has been prorogued until March 24, however, a new leader could decide to launch an early election to cement legitimacy before facing a non-confidence vote in the House of Commons.