The Liberal leadership race has unfolded as a masterclass in irony, hypocrisy, and missed opportunities—offering as much excitement as watching paint dry. This pre-cooked bake-off features four underwhelming candidates, all of whom have been active participants in Justin Trudeau’s government, which, over the past decade, has overseen Canada’s transformation from one of the world’s leading nations into a turgid, anti-business, socialist, indebted, dependent, and increasingly divided country. Trudeau’s post-national state philosophy has profoundly damaged Canada by prioritizing ideological purity over historical integrity and national unity. His constant effort to rewrite or reshape our history in favor of a sanitized, politically correct narrative has weakened the core values that built this country. At the same time, his focus on identity politics has deepened divisions, creating rifts between Canadians based on race, gender, and ideology, rather than bringing us together under shared values. By emphasizing symbolic gestures and virtue signaling over pressing issues like economic stability, housing affordability, and national security, Canadians have felt the fallout. This approach has fueled division, stifled meaningful dialogue, and hindered real progress in favor of political correctness. As a result, the nation has grown more fractured and polarized, struggling to address the urgent challenges it faces.
Long before the MAGA team targeted us with tariffs, Canada’s standard of living was already in freefall, largely due to policies enacted by the Trudeau-led Liberal government with the help of the candidates who are now seeking to serve Canada with more of the same. Canada’s economic decline began as investment and opportunity fled, driven by the government’s extreme climate change policies and anti-development agenda, which devastated key sectors like natural resources and energy, costing billions in lost foreign investment. Trudeau’s poor handling of international relations, particularly with India and China, further tarnished Canada’s global standing.
One of the more egregious and underreported consequences of Trudeau’s tenure has been the hollowing out of the Canadian Forces. Over the last decade, the Liberals have consistently underfunded the military, leaving Canada’s defense capabilities in a precarious state. While NATO allies have been boosting defense spending in response to growing global threats, Canada has fallen far behind. Today our military is under-equipped, underfunded, and overextended, with personnel shortages and outdated equipment becoming increasingly problematic. This neglect has tarnished Canada’s reputation on the world stage, making us appear as a laggard and an unreliable defence partner. In times of global instability, our NATO allies now question whether they can count on Canada.
At home, reckless spending and heavy taxation have pushed Canada’s debt to $1.3 trillion, with annual interest payments surpassing $60 billion—more than the government collects in HST revenue. Deficits under the Trudeau Liberals have driven federal debt from 53 percent of GDP in 2014 to an expected 69.8 percent in 2024, burdening future generations. On top of this economic mismanagement, the government’s failure on housing has triggered a national crisis, with affordability out of reach for many Canadians. Tent cities now dot urban landscapes, while the dismantling of Canada’s respected points-based immigration system has further eroded the country’s stability.
Crime has surged under the Trudeau Liberals, with changes to the criminal code that favour criminals over victims. In response to the rising drug crisis, fueled by fentanyl, the Liberals implemented a Kafkaesque solution: providing free narcotics and syringes to users while permitting open drug use in public spaces. The results have been disastrous—since 2016, over 38,500 Canadians have died from opioid toxicity. Ironically, at the same time, 1.2 million Canadians with Type 1 diabetes are still paying out of pocket for essential medical supplies like needles, test strips, and devices to survive. The Liberal government refused to include these costs in its so-called ‘universal pharmacare’ legislation, which has been ridiculed by health professionals as a hollow and politically motivated plan that fails to address the real needs of Canadians while prioritizing ideological goals over practical healthcare solutions. Meanwhile, inflation has soared, and over 2 million Canadians now rely on food banks each month due to widespread food insecurity.
Amid the turmoil, the Trump administration launched an economic assault on Canada. In response, a sheepish and compliant Liberal caucus backed Trudeau’s decision to prorogue Parliament, leaving the country without a functioning government during one of the most significant crises since the Great Wars and the Great Depression. This move left Canada vulnerable, forcing provincial premiers to step in and defend the nation’s interests. Instead of focusing on the country’s needs, the Liberal Party prioritized its own political survival by initiating a leadership race to replace the “dauphin.”
Adding to the spectacle are the Liberal Party’s behind-the-scenes puppet masters, who seem to be bending the rules to suit their agenda. The process for determining who can participate has been far from transparent, with multiple allegations of manipulation leading many to wonder if the outcome has already been decided. As the vote approaches this Sunday, concerns over the integrity of the party’s voter verification process are mounting.
In a moment of sublime irony, the party decided to use Canada Post’s Identity+ app and post office visits to verify voters’ identities. Under the Trudeau government, Canada Post has become the punchline of a bad joke—packages are as elusive as unicorns, and mail delivery has turned into an Olympic event for “most delayed.” At this point, Canada Post is more known for its inefficiency than its reliability. Complaints from MPs and party members have already surfaced, with issues such as app installation problems and discrepancies between registered names and legal documents. These frustrations are raising doubts about whether the March 9th vote will be fair and accessible to all.
There’s no denying that this leadership race has been a bust. From Mark Carney’s uninspiring speeches to Chrystia Freeland’s unrealistic claim that “everything is fine in Canada,” to Karina Gould’s full embrace of socialism, and Frank Baylis’ “business-first” approach that conveniently overlooks the $100 million untendered contract his company received from the Trudeau government during COVID—it’s clear these candidates are as out of touch with everyday Canadians as a GPS without a signal.
There’s also the persistent, unsettling feeling that the fix is in for Mark Carney, with Trudeau’s two top political operatives—Gerald Butts and Katie Telford—leading his campaign. But that’s not even the most eyebrow-raising part of this race. Enter the disqualifications.
Chandra Arya and Ruby Dhalla were both booted from the leadership race under questionable circumstances, highlighting the party’s obsession with strict rules and identity politics. Arya, whose ties to India and a meeting with Prime Minister Modi raised red flags, was disqualified with little explanation. He suggested the race was rigged.
A few weeks later, Dhalla, a former Liberal MP, was also disqualified, accused of multiple violations including misleading financial reporting and failing to disclose foreign involvement in her campaign. Dhalla, however, called the allegations “fabricated” and claimed the party wanted to clear the way for Carney’s coronation. The irony here is hard to ignore: the Liberals, who love to tout their commitment to diversity and inclusion, disqualified two minority candidates—both of Indian origin—citing foreign interference and financial issues. Dhalla herself described it as a “blatant attempt to silence an outspoken woman of colour challenging the status quo.”
None of the remaining Liberal leadership candidates have presented a credible plan to address Canada’s current crisis. Instead, the race was dominated by recycled ideas, empty gestures, and boring,lacklustre debates that put the audience in a coma. With little substance from the candidates, it’s hard to ignore the feeling that Mark Carney has been positioned as the front-runner from the start, showing just how disconnected the Liberal Party is from the real issues facing Canadians.
Mark Carney, former Governor of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England, has served as a ‘trusted economic and climate advisor’ to Prime Minister Trudeau since 2019. While his supporters tout his credentials to steer Canada through economic troubles, his performance in the Liberal leadership race was as inspiring as a wet sock. Carney’s clinical style and empty promises to cut taxes, reduce government intervention, and balance the budget eventually seemed tone-deaf, especially considering his role in advising the Trudeau government, which pushed Canada into over $1 trillion in debt. But it wasn’t just his economic policies that raised eyebrows. When asked about the cost of the average Canadian family’s weekly grocery bill, Carney’s answer was both out of touch and hilariously wrong. He claimed he wasn’t the one who did the grocery shopping at his house. To be fair, it’s unlikely he meant that task was for his wife—he was probably referring to his butler. His colleagues Karina Gould and Chrystia Freeland chimed in to try to save face, estimating that the bill was $200-$250. The real figure, according to the Canada Food Price Report 2024, and anyone who actually buys groceries, is $313-$350 per week. This gaffe highlighted how disconnected Carney and his fellow candidates are from the daily financial realities most Canadians face.
Carney’s credibility also took hits from other questionable claims. Former Prime Minister Stephen Harper publicly called him out for falsely taking credit for Canada’s response to the 2008 financial crisis—a job done by the late Jim Flaherty. Carney also falsely claimed to have helped balance the 1998 federal budget, despite being a student at Oxford at the time.
Another blow to Carney’s trustworthiness came with his comments about the relocation of Brookfield Asset Management’s headquarters from Toronto to New York. He said the move was made after his resignation in January 2025, but the company had announced it months earlier in October 2024. Then it was revealed that Carney had signed a memo in December 2024, praising the decision. Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre accused Carney of lying to Canadians, reinforcing the growing doubts about his honesty.
Carney’s most notable misstep came during the televised debates when he awkwardly commented on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, inadvertently suggesting the Liberal Party supported Hamas on a two-state solution. He was quickly corrected by Chrystia Freeland and Karina Gould, who clarified, “No, we don’t support Hamas.” However, the blunder highlighted Carney’s lack of awareness on crucial international issues and underscored the ongoing problem of antisemitism within the Liberal Party. Rather than countering the perception of him as a global elitist, Carney’s leadership bid has only amplified this view, revealing his growing detachment from the concerns of everyday Canadians.
Chrystia Freeland spent over a decade working alongside Justin Trudeau, yet despite her extensive experience, she failed to offer a clear vision for addressing the country’s current challenges. Her repeated claim that Canada’s economy is “just fine” reflects her detachment from the struggles millions of Canadians face—soaring inflation, rising housing costs, and an unbearable cost of living. As Finance Minister, Freeland’s policies significantly contributed to Canada’s record debt levels, a legacy of higher taxes, and runaway food inflation, all while exacerbating the preventable housing crisis. Throughout the leadership race, instead of taking responsibility for these issues, Freeland deflected blame and failed to present real solutions. Rather than tackling the pressing concerns of debt, inflation, and housing affordability head-on, she reverted to lecturing and dodging tough questions—a tactic she honed in the House of Commons. This only reinforced the perception that she lacks the leadership and judgment needed to guide Canada out of the crisis she helped create.
Karina Gould seems to be pushing for more government intervention, particularly with her support for a universal basic income (UBI). While it sounds nice in theory, UBI would cost billions of dollars—money Canada simply doesn’t have. Since the Trudeau government took office, Canada’s debt has skyrocketed from $618 billion in 2015 to over $1 trillion today. Inflation is high, housing is unaffordable, and everyday Canadians are feeling the strain. A UBI, as appealing as it might sound, is essentially socialism on steroids. Gould is a prime example of what could be called “political gender dysphoria.” She’s a socialist dressed in liberal clothing—a trend that seems to run through much of the Trudeau caucus. Perhaps she should “transition” to the NDP or the Greens and replace the chardonnay-inspired leadership of uber-socialist Elizabeth May, who is clearly more in line with the brand of politics Gould represents. Instead of addressing critical issues like growing the economy, boosting productivity, restoring investor confidence, tackling supply shortages, and attracting business investment,Gould squandered her opportunity in the race to present a fresh and credible plan for meaningful change. Instead, she relied on the old, tired and failed ideological solutions from the far left—such as higher taxes and more regulation—rather than offering practical, results-driven strategies to make Canada more competitive and prosperous.
Frank Baylis isn’t exactly the front-runner in the Liberal leadership race—more like the guy you vaguely remember as an MP but can’t quite place. A former representative for Pierrefonds-Dollard (2015-2019) and health-tech businessman, Baylis is positioning himself as the practical, business-savvy alternative to the establishment. However, his pitch of economic pragmatism stumbles when you recall that his company, Baylis Medical, landed a $100 million untendered federal contract during the COVID-19 pandemic to supply ventilators, some of which reportedly didn’t meet expectations and were defective.
While Baylis was no longer an MP when the deal was made, his past role raised uncomfortable questions about conflicts of interest. He defended the contract, touting his company’s expertise, but critics saw it as yet another example of insiders profiting from a crisis. Now, as he runs for the Liberal leadership, Baylis insists his unique mix of political and business experience makes him the right choice to fix Canada’s economic and healthcare issues. Whether that’s a fresh perspective or a red flag depends on how forgiving Liberal members are feeling. At the very least, Baylis offers the party a real test: Will they take a chance on a newcomer with baggage or stick with the usual suspects and their recycled talking points?
The Liberal leadership race has been a textbook example of missed opportunities, lack of vision, and political theatre. Mark Carney’s corporate jargon is more suited to a boardroom than the reality of Canadian lives; Chrystia Freeland’s constant assurances that “everything’s fine” is beyond bizarre, while Karina Gould’s UBI proposal seems like a fairy-tale solution for an economy teetering on the brink. Meanwhile, Frank Baylis’ attempts to escape the shadow of his controversial ventilator deal feel more like a desperate game of political whack-a-mole.
At the heart of it all, the race exposed a Liberal party more focused on survival than on offering real answers to the pressing issues Canadians face on a daily basis. Sadly, these leadership contenders have failed to present a credible vision for change. Until the Liberals shift their focus from political maneuvering to genuine problem-solving and get back to the centre of the political spectrum—their future is bleak.
