Canada is set for a new prime minister as the ruling Liberal Party prepares to announce Justin Trudeau’s replacement as leader.
Mr Trudeau, who has been prime minister since 2015, announced he was stepping downin January after facing calls to quit from a chorus of his own MPs.
The 53-year-old’s popularity had declined as food and house prices rose.
The Liberal Party will announce its new leader tonight following a vote by around 140,000 members.
A former Bank of England governor has emerged as the frontrunner as the country deals with the impacts of tariffs imposed by US President Donald Trump.
The next prime minister will also have to decide when to call a general election – which must be held on or before 20 October.
As the Liberal Party prepares to choose its new leader, we take a look at the candidates.
Mark Carney
Image: Mark Carney addresses supporters in Alberta in March. Pic: AP
The 59-year-old will be a familiar face to many in the UK as he served as governor of the Bank of England between 2013 and 2020.
He was formerly the head of Canada’s central bank and was praised after the country recovered from the 2008 financial crisis faster than many other countries.
He did not serve in Mr Trudeau’s government but was named as the chair of a government task force on economic growth last September.
Daniel Beland, a political science professor at McGill University in Montreal, said Mr Carney’s calm demeanour and outstanding resume make him a reassuring figure to many Canadians at a time when Mr Trump is “going after their country’s economy and sovereignty”.
Image: Chrystia Freeland speaks during the Liberal leadership debate in Montreal in February. Pic: AP
Ms Freeland, a former deputy prime minister and finance minister of Canada, was leading in the polls to replace Mr Trudeau shortly after he announced his resignation.
However, her long association with the outgoing prime minister and the threat of Mr Trump’s tariffs have since tipped things in Mr Carney’s favour.
The 56-year-old was born in the west Canadian province of Alberta to a Ukrainian mother.
Before entering politics in 2013, Ms Freeland worked as a journalist covering Russia and Ukraine for several years.
Mr Trudeau told Ms Freeland that he no longer wanted her as finance minister in December but that she could remain deputy prime minister and the point person for US-Canada relations.
She stepped down shortly after and released a scathing letter about the government which increased pressure on Mr Trudeau ahead of his resignation.
Karina Gould
Image: Karina Gould speaks during the Liberal Party leadership debate in Montreal in February. Pic: AP
Ms Gould is the youngest woman to serve as a minister in Canada and has advocated for a tough stance on Mr Trump.
The 37-year-old, who has served as minister of democratic institutions and minister of international development, has previously branded herself as part of a “generational shift” and said the Liberal Party “needs to embrace this shift too”.
Ms Gould has reportedly proposed an increase in corporate taxes on large companies earning more than CAN$500m (£270m) a year to encourage them to reinvest in business and productivity.
She was serving as house leader until January 2025 when she left the cabinet to run for party leader.
Frank Baylis
Image: Frank Baylis during the Liberal Leadership debate in Montreal in February. Pic: AP
Mr Baylis, a businessman from Montreal, served as a Liberal Party politician between 2015 and 2019.
The 62-year-old has reportedly proposed creating two pipelines that would transport natural gas to international markets in Europe and Asia to reduce dependence on America.
Mr Baylis criticised Mr Trudeau for travelling to meet Mr Trump at his Mar-a-Lago resort in November.
He said: “Anybody’s that ever dealt with a bully successfully know you don’t give an inch.”
What’s next for Canada?
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:01
‘You can’t take our country or our game’
The new leader of the Liberal Party is expected to call a general election shortly after they take up the role.
After decades of bilateral stability, Canada’s next election is expected to focus on who is best equipped to deal with the United States.
The Donald Trump peace plan is nothing of the sort. It takes Russian demands and presents them as peace proposals, in what is effectively for Ukraine a surrender ultimatum.
If accepted, it would reward armed aggression. The principle, sacrosanct since the Second World War, for obvious and very good reasons, that even de facto borders cannot be changed by force, will have been trampled on at the behest of the leader of the free world.
The Kremlin will have imposed terms via negotiators on a country it has violated, and whose people its troops have butchered, massacred and raped. It is without doubt the biggest crisis in Trans-Atlantic relations since the war began, if not since the inception of NATO.
The question now is: are Europe’s leaders up to meeting the daunting challenges that will follow. On past form, we cannot be sure.
Image: Vladimir Putin, President of Russia. Pic: Sputnik/Gavriil Grigorov via Reuters
The plan proposes the following:
• Land seized by Vladimir Putin’s unwarranted and unprovoked invasion would be ceded by Kyiv.
• Territory his forces have fought but failed to take with colossal loss of life will be thrown into the bargain for good measure.
• Ukraine will be barred from NATO, from having long-range weapons, from hosting foreign troops, from allowing foreign diplomatic planes to land, and its military neutered, reduced in size by more than half.
Image: Donald Trump meeting Vladimir Putin in Alaska in August, File pic: Reuters
And most worryingly for Western leaders, the plan proposes NATO and Russia negotiate with America acting as mediator.
Lest we forget, America is meant to be the strongest partner in NATO, not an outside arbitrator. In one clause, Mr Trump’s lack of commitment to the Western alliance is laid bare in chilling clarity.
And even for all that, the plan will not bring peace. Mr Putin has made it abundantly clear he wants all of Ukraine.
He has a proven track record of retiring, rallying his forces, then returning for more. Reward a bully as they say, and he will only come back for more. Why wouldn’t he, if he is handed the fortress cities of Donetsk and a clear run over open tank country to Kyiv in a few years?
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:29
US draft Russia peace plan
Since the beginning of Trump’s presidency, Europe has tried to keep the maverick president onside when his true sympathies have repeatedly reverted to Moscow.
It has been a demeaning and sycophantic spectacle, NATO’s secretary general stooping even to calling the US president ‘Daddy’. And it hasn’t worked. It may have made matters worse.
Image: A choir sing in front of an apartment building destroyed in a Russian missile strike in Ternopil, Ukraine. Pic: Reuters
The parade of world leaders trooping through Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, lavishing praise on his Gaza ceasefire plan, only encouraged him to believe he is capable of solving the world’s most complex conflicts with the minimum of effort.
The Gaza plan is mired in deepening difficulty, and it never came near addressing the underlying causes of the war.
Most importantly, principles the West has held inviolable for eight decades cannot be torn up for the sake of a quick and uncertain peace.
With a partner as unreliable, the challenge to Europe cannot be clearer.
In the words of one former Baltic foreign minister: “There is a glaringly obvious message for Europe in the 28-point plan: This is the end of the end.
“We have been told repeatedly and unambiguously that Ukraine’s security, and therefore Europe’s security, will be Europe’s responsibility. And now it is. Entirely.”
If Europe does not step up to the plate and guarantee Ukraine’s security in the face of this American betrayal, we could all pay the consequences.
“Terrible”, “weird”, “peculiar” and “baffling” – some of the adjectives being levelled by observers at the Donald Trump administration’s peace plan for Ukraine.
The 28-point proposal was cooked up between Trump negotiator Steve Witkoff and Kremlin official Kirill Dmitriev without European and Ukrainian involvement.
It effectively dresses up Russian demands as a peace proposal. Demands first made by Russia at the high watermark of its invasion in 2022, before defeats forced it to retreat from much of Ukraine.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:38
Ukrainian support for peace plan ‘very much in doubt’
The suspicion is Mr Witkoff and Mr Dmitriev conspired together to choose this moment to put even more pressure on the Ukrainian president.
Perversely, though, it may help him.
There has been universal condemnation and outrage in Kyiv at the Witkoff-Dmitriev plan. Rivals have little choice but to rally around the wartime Ukrainian leader as he faces such unreasonable demands.
The genesis of this plan is unclear.
Was it born from Donald Trump’s overinflated belief in his peacemaking abilities? His overrated Gaza ceasefire plan attracted lavish praise from world leaders, but now seems mired in deepening difficulty.
The fear is Mr Trump’s team are finding ways to allow him to walk away from this conflict altogether, blaming Ukrainian intransigence for the failure of his diplomacy.
Mr Trump has already ended financial support for Ukraine, acting as an arms dealer instead, selling weapons to Europe to pass on to the invaded democracy.
If he were to take away military intelligence support too, Ukraine would be blind to the kind of attacks that in recent days have killed scores of civilians.
Europe and Ukraine cannot reject the plan entirely and risk alienating Mr Trump.
They will play for time and hope against all the evidence he can still be persuaded to desert the Kremlin and put pressure on Vladimir Putin to end the war, rather than force Ukraine to surrender instead.