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

Card-holding Liberals will now choose between former governor of the banks of Canada and England Mark Carney, former finance minister Chrystia Freeland, House government leader Karina Gould and businessman and former MP Frank Baylis.

Whoever wins the vote on 9 March will become Canada’s next prime minister and will lead the Liberals in the forthcoming general election, which must be held on or before 20 October of this year.

A big focus of the debates has been how Canada should respond to US President Donald Trump, who has threatened steep tariffs on America’s northern neighbour and has suggested that Canada become the “51st state.”

Here are five big takeaways from the two Liberal leadership debates.

How Canada should respond to what many have dubbed an “existential threat” from US President Donald Trump has unsurprisingly dominated the agenda at both debates.

Trump has said he plans to impose a 25% tariff on all Canadian exports, with the exception of energy that would be tariffed at a lower 10% – a move that economists say would be devastating for Canada while increasing prices for Americans.

He has also repeatedly proposed that the US should annex Canada, which has been met with alarm and anger from large swathes of the Canadian population.

Freeland, a former top minister who served during Trump’s first term, positioned herself as an experienced negotiator who has fought – and won – against the US president and his previous tariffs.

But Carney warned that the Trump of today was not the Trump of the past. “He is more isolationist. He is more aggressive,” Carney said. “In the past he wanted our markets. Now he wants our country.”

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

Baylis, meanwhile, said Canada needed to forge closer economic ties with the UK, New Zealand and Australia, saying all four were like-minded countries with shared values, culture, and government systems.

Trump’s threats are made more alarming by Canada’s current economic situation.

Canadians have voiced frustrations over the stubborn high cost of living.

Carney – an economist by trade – promised a plan that would balance Canada’s operational budget in three years and proposed that Canada rethink the way it spends its money.

But he has also noted his support for key Liberal programmes, like affordable childcare and dental care.

As the former finance minister, Freeland defended her track record, saying the country’s finances were still “very strong”. She added that Canada should capitalise on the surge of patriotism in the face of Trump’s threats, using that momentum to support Canadian industries and promote job growth.

Baylis drew on his expertise as a businessman to say that Canada should work on building its productivity.

Gould, on the other hand, said the Liberal Party should be “realistic with Canadians” and that balancing the budget in three years was not possible without significant cuts, which she did not support. She said Canada should instead focus on “modernising its social safety net” to help those who are struggling.

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

The four candidates were debating with each other but they often presented a united front against their shared opponent, Conservative party leader Pierre Poilievre, whose party is favoured in the polls as the most likely to form Canada’s next government.

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

Carney criticised Poilievre as “irresponsible” and added that Canada could “not afford” to have him as prime minister.

Poilievre, who has enjoyed a sizable lead in the polls ahead of an unpopular Trudeau, has had to pivot his pitch to Canadians since Trudeau’s resignation.

His message changed from criticising the sitting prime minister for leading a “broken” Canada to putting “Canada First” in the face of threats from the US. He has also shifted his focus to attacking Carney, who is favoured to win the Liberal leadership race.

Poilievre is still polling ahead nationally, but some polls suggest that the lead between him and the Liberals has shrunk since Trudeau’s exit.

Responding to shifting US policy on the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, all four candidates affirmed their commitment to continuing Canada’s support for Ukraine.

All of them also backed the need for Canada to hit its 2% military spending target as set out in its commitments to the Nato alliance, though they disagreed on the timeline and how to get there.

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

Both Freeland and Carney said Canada needed to invest that money into Canadian military ventures instead of into the US.

Freeland noted that Canada should reduce its reliance on the US, and should look to work with the EU and other Nato partners on security assurances.

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

But that tax has proven to be unpopular with Canadians, forcing Carney and Freeland to promise that they would ditch the policy.

Carney, a former UN special envoy on climate action and finance, has long been a proponent of the carbon tax. In the debates, however, he acknowledged the tax on consumers had become divisive, and said he would instead focus on taxing big polluters and growing clean energy projects in Canada.

Freeland, who resigned from Trudeau’s government because of disagreements with the prime minister on spending, said that history would judge his climate action favourably despite his policies’ unpopularity. But she, too, vowed to scrap the carbon tax.

“Democracy is about listening to people, and Canadians were very clear with us that they did not think that policy worked for them,” she said.

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