Election debates are this week—here’s what leaders should be talking about

When the party leaders face off in the Radio-Canada building in Montreal on Wednesday for a French language debate—and then on Thursday in English—it will be the first time that they outline their programs in the presence of one another. They will be trying to woo the public and come across as the right person for the job—in particular, the job of staring down an increasingly belligerent United States, led by Donald Trump. 

That is likely to be the main topic of conversation, says Stuart Trew, director of the Trade and Investment Research Project (TIRP) at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA). Trew points to recent polling that shows “dealing with Donald Trump and his administration” was the top issue voters want to see addressed in this week’s leaders’ debates.

“People are scared, angry and looking for big ideas,” Trew says. “Not just to confront the immediate and constantly shifting U.S. threat, but to forge a more independent future for this country.”

For Trew, though, the two current frontrunners in the race—the Liberals and Conservatives—should use the debate to better articulate to voters what, exactly, they plan to do differently from one another. Both agree on seeking post-election talks and building a new relationship. But what exactly that relationship looks like is murky, at best.

“Why do the party leaders think negotiating with Trump, now or later, is a good or bad idea?” Trew asks. “What kind of new relationship are they talking about? Do they think the renegotiated North American trade deal is working? What are their red lines—on defence, supply management, the automotive sector, cultural protections? Where does the rest of the world fit into our post-Trump foreign policy?”

“The bargain Canada struck with America when we signed the first free trade deal over 30 years ago is dead,” Trew says. “There is no alternative to finding an alternative. We should be voting on big, bold visions for Canada’s economic future, not handing the next government a foggy mandate to figure that out later.”

But despite it being the most talked-about issue in this election by far, Canada’s relationship with the U.S. is far from the only thing at stake in this election. And much of that is likely to be ignored at the leaders debates on Wednesday and Thursday.

The care economy

For Katherine Scott, senior researcher at the CCPA, one of the biggest gaps in this election cycle has been about the care economy. The public discourse, she points out, has only really touched on whether parties will maintain existing social programs like the new universal child care and dental care programs, and the fledgling pharmacare program.

“These worries aren’t lost on the millions without a family doctor,” Scott says, “or the families worried about the safety of loved ones in long term homes. And they certainly aren’t lost on parents desperate for an affordable child care spot.”

The Liberals, NDP, and Green party (whose leaders did not meet the criteria to be accepted onto the debate stage) have committed to maintaining the dental and child care programs. The NDP and Greens have committed to expanding pharmacare to new classes of drugs beyond diabetes medication and contraceptives, the only two classes which it currently covers. The Conservatives have said they will “make sure that nobody loses their dental care,” but voted against it and the pharmacare program when their legislation was presented. 

Scott points out that, rather than the parties presenting a clear plan for these types of public services, “we are having to parse news releases and off-hand comments to get any sense of what the parties are proposing by way of change.” The debates will likely continue that trend and provide more breadcrumbs as to what plans they actually have.

Tax cuts

One of the few places where the parties have released plans, so far, is when it comes to taxes. David Macdonald, a senior economist at the CCPA, has done detailed and aggregated costing on the parties’ promises—and describes them as “incredibly expensive.”

“Only one party—the NDP—even had any revenue raising measures,” Macdonald says. “But even factoring that in, their plan would cost $20 billion a year.”

Macdonald points out that “several of the parties say they want balanced books in just a few years,” a position which he describes as “a mistake” due to the deficit being at a relatively reasonable level historically. 

“If you want balanced books in a few years, where are the cuts going to come from?” Macdonald asks. “You’ve got some options, but no one will like them. Health care transfers to the provinces, Employment Insurance, affordable child care, higher taxes and so on. These tax cuts are so large, “internal efficiencies” aren’t going to do it.”

Housing

Before Trump’s threats became the dominant ballot question of this election, the sky-high cost of housing across the country was arguably the most important issue on voters’ minds—and the parties’ housing plans are likely to take up space at this debate. 

For CCPA political economist Ricardo Tranjan, the housing question has been far too focused on solutions which will bear fruit in a few years—notably, new housing construction—and not enough on immediate solutions to alleviate housing insecurity for people facing it right now. 

Tranjan describes the parties’ home-building targets as “useful,” but points out that there is also “plenty that can be done now” which has, so far, escaped the discussion. 

“Parties could take a stance on encampments and whether provincial governments can permit municipalities to use force to clear them,” Tranjan says. “Parties could commit to ongoing funding for social housing. Parties could commit to using federal levers to enact rent controls nationally, as has been done in the past. Parties could commit to making evictions a last legal resort, illegal in some circumstances. Parties could commit to assisting mortgage holders instead of mortgage lenders if worse comes to worst in the trade war.”

So far, the NDP is the only party promising to enact any type of national rent control, Tranjan says. Other parties are mostly competing over who can promise to build the most houses.

“The housing debate has focused on promises to build more housing, which is necessary but far from sufficient,” Tranjan says. “Canada needs housing measures that will have an impact by the first of next month, which is the furthest into the future many can afford to contemplate right now.”

Climate change

“You wouldn’t know it from the election campaign so far, but 2024 was the hottest and most destructive year in Canadian history,” says Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood, a senior researcher at the CCPA. “it is shocking that no major federal party has taken a firm position against new fossil fuel infrastructure. Indeed, several parties are championing new oil and gas pipelines.”

“Our dependence on the fossil fuel trade makes us dependent on a volatile, U.S.-dominated global market. Turning from fossil fuels to clean energy not only addresses climate change, but it also makes us more independent.”

“At the very least, I hope to see federal leaders acknowledge the problem,” Mertins-Kirkwood says. “Better would be a comprehensive vision for a cleaner, more inclusive future economy.”

A long term vision

The debates will provide some deeper insight into the party leaders and their plans—which, so far, have been quite vague. The U.S. government’s threats to destroy Canada’s economy and annex it as the 51st state have turned this into a crisis election,and radically upended the dynamics that were at play a few short months ago. 

But in that context, it’s easy to lose sight of important big issues—and whichever party wins is going to have a relatively broad mandate without many specific promises. 

For CCPA Senior Researcher Marc Lee, that presents a serious democratic problem. “Canadians are in a tough spot in this election,” he says. “With the ballot box decision being who is best able to negotiate with Trump, Canadians don’t really have a clear picture of what they’re going to get the day after the election, apart from an income tax cut (if they earn enough). Other promises have been vague enough that anything is possible, particularly if the winner has a majority government.”

For Lee, this underscores the necessity of reforming Canada’s democratic system more deeply. He points out that when the Liberals were last elected to a majority government in 2015, they rode a promise of electoral reform—one they broke shortly after assuming office.

“What Canadians need is an electoral system that better reflects the will of the people rather than giving a temporary monopoly on power,” Lee says. “How would each of the parties consider reforms to improve our democracy?”

While the parties haven’t focused on those big questions this election, they remain present. On the debate stage this Wednesday and Thursday, a forward-thinking leader would be good to bring up these deeper questions. After all, when we talk about defending Canada from Trump, what are we talking about if not our democracy? 

The French language debate will take place at 6:00p.m. on Wednesday, April 16, and the English language debate on Thursday, April 17 at 7:00p.m. It will air on all major Canadian news networks and be live-streamed online on their websites.