After two debates, I've ranked my ballot for Liberal Leader.

The results may shock you!

All four candidates stand at their podiums during the Liberal Leadership English Debate on Tuesday, February 25^th. From left to right: Karina Gould, Frank Baylis, Chrystia Freeland, and Mark Carney. | Copyright © Liberal Party of Canada, licensed under fair dealing.

As a Liberal, I was delightfully surprised by the quality of both the French and English debates for the Liberal leadership contest, which will decide the next Prime Minister of Canada.

Both debates, moderated in French by former TVA journalist Pierre Jobin, and in English by former CBC journalist Hannah Thibedeau, were conducted to a high standard of behaviour by both the candidates and the moderators themselves.

As I wrote about after the Ontario Provincial Election Debate, things can get messy during open debate segments between candidates. Many voters begin to ask why those segments exist.

But both Jobin and Thibedeau did an excellent job keeping candidates from stepping on each other’s toes, and proved how useful open debate can be. They ensured that when one candidate made remarks about another candidate, equitable time was given for the latter to respond.

Going into the debate with a large polling lead, Mark Carney was the candidate with the most to lose; indeed, when ranking all four candidates on my ballot, he does not even make the top half.

So, with the benefit of these two debates to educate my opinion, here is the order in which I will be ranking my ballot for the leadership contest:

1. Frank Baylis

Mr. Baylis first caught my attention before the debates, when he pledged to extend diplomatic recognition to the State of Palestine. He contrasted himself to the other candidates by stating that their support for the two-state solution is only on paper, while his support is material and will become reality if he is elected.

This became particularly interesting during the French language debate, when he further argued the point by stating that we should not take foreign policy direction on Palestine from the Americans; it helped to frame this policy within a larger ideological stance.

Baylis’ other shining moment of the French language debate was when he called out Québec’s secularism law as discriminatory, and related a public servant being fired for her hijab to his mother’s personal experience facing racial discrimination. I believe there are many Liberal Party members who will appreciate his vocal opposition to bigotry.

In both the French and English debates, Baylis took the harshest stance of all candidates against Donald Trump, stating that he would refuse to spend money on the border to entertain Trump’s nonsense.

But Baylis truly won me over with his no-negotiation stance toward Trump. He pointed out that we shouldn’t make new deals with someone who breaks our previous deals. Baylis pledged to meet immediately with President Sheinbaum of México, to form a popular front in North America against Yankee imperialism.

I don’t know that Baylis will win the race, but I am placing him at the top of my ballot because he reflects many of the ideals that I want the Liberal Party to embody, particularly on foreign policy and on civil liberties. He is pushing the conversation in the right direction.

2. Karina Gould

Ms. Gould impressed me by taking strong progressive stances that will drag the Liberal Party to the left; in several cases I preferred her position on an issue over Baylis’.

I also think she did an excellent job of differentiating herself from Carney, by openly criticizing his refusal to take clear stances on specific issues. I found it compelling to see her bring clash to the debate by challenging her opponents; it may be a friendly contest, but it is nonetheless still a contest.

Gould distinguished herself by being the only candidate of the four to say she would not eliminate the consumer carbon tax. She said that it was an important reason she first became a Liberal MP in 2015, and that she won’t give up on fighting for the future of her two children simply because Tories have demonized a successful policy.

For all of these reasons, she is ranked second on my ballot. But why is she not ranked first? Two problems.

Gould’s proposal to cut the GST from 5% to 4% for a temporary one-year period is a reckless capitulation to populism. Public furor near the end of that year will ensure it will not be temporary—remember, the original GST was 7%.

Contrary to popular opinion, the GST is a progressive tax measure; it taxes consumption, and high consumption correlates directly to high income. You can target this further against the wealthy by removing GST from necessity items. But this tax cut would cost billions, balloon the deficit, and harm our AAA credit rating.

Secondly, her insistence that Canadians have no choice but to negotiate with Donald Trump made her the weakest candidate in responding to the existential threat of Yankee imperialism. She is far more ambitious on increasing military spending than Baylis, but I now question whether she is hawkish enough to use that military.

Despite those two flaws, I like Gould a great deal, and I would be very happy to have her as Prime Minister. She has a reasonable chance to win the leadership, and solid odds to lead us to victory in a general election. She ranks number two on my ballot.

3. Mark Carney

As said previously, Mr. Carney had the most to lose before the debates, and lose he did. While he may be popular with the general electorate, these debates have raised serious questions about his basic political instincts.

Carney’s fluency in the French language was undoubtedly the worst of the four candidates; he was competent enough, but a single gaff in which Carney accidentally said “we agree with Hamas” was all it took for the Tories to pump out a slew of attacks.

I have serious concern over how he will fare in situations where the stakes are higher. Freeland may have been forgiving in this instance, but I doubt that Poilievre or Blanchet would be as merciful.

While some criticized Carney’s inability to add emotional inflection to his words during the French debate, I do not believe that is part of his language problem; he was indeed quite monotone and flat during the English debate as well. Speeches are not his strong suit.

On a curious note, Carney repeatedly agreed with his opponents in the debate, giving them credit by name for providing the same answer he was planning to give. From a tactical standpoint, this is a terrible way to debate; it makes him seem like he doesn’t have original ideas.

And when it comes to answering the debate questions, Carney was unorganized, verbally flitting around between different concepts while struggling to coordinate them into a cohesive answer or narrative.

With all of that said, debate and speech skills are a minor consideration for the wider public. If they like him, and they want to vote for him, and he has managerial competency, that’s…not a terrible reason to vote for him.

But my standards are higher, and that’s not enough to make the top of my ballot. I rank Carney in third place, below Baylis in first and Gould in second.

4. Chrystia Freeland

Ms. Freeland has placed herself in an impossible position. She was undoubtedly correct to resign and to force Trudeau’s resignation…but she is now perceived as a backstabber, even if I personally believe that to be highly unfair.

Every candidate needs to walk a tightrope, because there is a large segment of party membership who still like Trudeau, but they must each distinguish themselves from him to appeal to the general electorate. For Freeland, this challenge will be significantly more difficult.

Undoubtedly, Freeland is tied the closest to Trudeau’s legacy, having served as his Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of Finance, and Deputy Prime Minister. These titles are an albatross around her neck which Pierre Poilievre will gladly weaponize; she cannot run from her deep involvement in the Trudeau government the same way that Gould has.

And from a policy standpoint, I’m simply not compelled by anything that Freeland is offering. Her opponents have matched or exceeded her military hawkishness, and she repeatedly postured in the debate as speaking on behalf of every candidate, as if she had already won, and they were merely ministers in her cabinet.

One moment that elevated Gould for me was when she attacked Freeland for using the “healthcare is a provincial responsibility” excuse as a counter to Gould’s plan to attach conditions to the Federal health transfer.

Gould rightly makes the argument that we should not be sending free money to the provinces if they won’t use it for the purpose the Federal government intended. And this back-and-forth reminded me that Freeland has been close with Doug Ford, and made excuses for him before.

One unique thing which Freeland did bring to the table was that she would ally with Britain and France for their nuclear weapons. While I do actually agree with her on this proposal…it is certainly a grim state of affairs, that Canada must consider harnessing the nuclear flame as a weapon.

Freeland represents the status quo, and I believe that her approach is not merely harmful to our electoral chances, but harmful to the Canadian working class. She and Carney are similar, but he has less baggage. I rank her last on my ballot.

But what do you think?

This is just my ranking, and the beautiful part of a ranked ballot is that many people will rank candidates differently while agreeing on the same core principles. Please comment below with your ranking, and feel free to explain your thoughts!

I like ranked ballots for the positive, friendly atmosphere they inject into the political environment. It is better for our culture when politicians compete to be your second choice, rather than the hostile “all or nothing” approach of first-past-the-post.

Electoral reform sure is nice. Have the Liberals ever considered it?