Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

National

Crowning the Captain of a Sinking Ship: Who Will Be the Next Liberal Leader?

Published

21 minute read

The Opposition with Dan Knight

 The Fight to Lead a Party on the Brink of Irrelevance

It’s December 31st, New Year’s Eve, and as we wrap up this catastrophic year, let’s take a moment to reflect on the political dumpster fire we find ourselves in. I hope you’ve got a stiff drink because the election year ahead is shaping up to be a circus. And at the center of the big top? Justin Trudeau, clinging to power like a toddler to his binky, while whispers of resignation swirl around him. But let’s be honest—do we actually think he has the guts to step down? Not a chance.

Let’s get this straight: if Trudeau does bail, he’s leaving a flaming wreckage for someone else to clean up. That’s his legacy—eight years of virtue-signaling, fiscal recklessness, and divisive identity politics, all culminating in a Liberal Party that’s circling the drain. And now, when the going gets tough, the golden boy might just pack it in? How noble. But really, would it surprise anyone? The man has all the grit of a soggy croissant.

So who’s going to take the reins of this sinking ship? Let’s take a look at the cast of characters who might have the stomach—or lack of self-awareness—to step up.


Mark Carney: The Globalist Banker

Alright, Canada, let’s get serious for a moment and talk about the Liberals’ latest pipe dream: Mark Carney as their next leader. Yes, Mark Carney—the globalist banker who’s spent more time cozying up to billionaires at Davos than he has walking the streets of Moose Jaw. If this is the Liberals’ idea of a “fresh start,” then we’re in for even more of the same elitist nonsense that’s driven this country into the ground.

Who is Mark Carney, really? He’s not a leader. He’s a technocrat, a former central banker whose claim to fame is lecturing the world on fiscal responsibility while ignoring the very real struggles of ordinary people. He’s the poster boy for the World Economic Forum’s brand of top-down control, someone who believes in “stakeholder capitalism”—which is just code for bureaucrats and corporations running your life. And yet, somehow, the Liberals think this guy is the one to rebuild their tarnished reputation? Give me a break.

Carney’s entire career has been about serving the global elite. He’s a Goldman Sachs alum, for crying out loud. Do you honestly believe someone with that pedigree is going to step into the ring and start fighting for the working class? Of course not. He’ll push the same disastrous policies that have gutted the middle class—more taxes, more spending, more “green” initiatives that make heating your home a luxury.

And let’s not forget the optics. This is a man who’s spent years flying around the globe, hobnobbing with world leaders and lecturing them on climate policy. Does he even know what Canadians are going through right now? Has he ever set foot in a grocery store and winced at the price of a loaf of bread? My guess is no. But sure, Liberals, tell us how this guy is going to connect with voters in rural Saskatchewan or Northern Ontario. The man probably thinks “double-double” is a stock market term.

Then there’s the political reality. If Carney goes head-to-head with Pierre Poilievre, it’s not going to be a contest—it’s going to be a massacre. Poilievre has spent years sharpening his message, hammering home the Liberals’ failures, and building a grassroots movement. Mark Carney? He’s the kind of guy who speaks in 15-minute monologues filled with jargon nobody understands. It’s not just that he’s out of touch—it’s that he doesn’t even know what being in touch looks like.

This isn’t leadership. It’s desperation. The Liberals are throwing Carney into the mix because they have no other options, no fresh ideas, and no connection to the struggles of everyday Canadians. He’s not the answer; he’s a symptom of the problem. The party that brought you eight years of Justin Trudeau now wants to hand the reins to a man who’s even more disconnected, more elitist, and more out of step with what this country actually needs.

Mark Carney as Liberal leader? Please. If this is their plan, then the Liberals have already lost, and Canada will be better off for it. Good riddance.


Dominic LeBlanc: Trudeau’s Loyal Lapdog and the Wrong Choice for Liberal Leadership

Dominic LeBlanc, the latest name being floated as a potential Liberal leader. If the Liberals think this guy is the answer to their problems, then they clearly haven’t been paying attention to what Canadians actually want. Let’s not sugarcoat this: Dominic LeBlanc is Trudeau’s loyal lapdog, and putting him at the helm of the Liberal Party would be the equivalent of putting fresh paint on a sinking ship.

LeBlanc’s biggest problem is that he’s not a leader—he’s a career politician who thrives on backroom deals and political patronage. He’s spent years in Trudeau’s inner circle, defending every mistake, every scandal, and every bad policy. Canadians are fed up with the cronyism that defines this government, and LeBlanc embodies it. The man’s entire career has been about staying in Trudeau’s shadow, not standing on his own.

Now, let’s talk about his record. What exactly has Dominic LeBlanc accomplished that qualifies him to lead a country? Sure, he’s held high-profile positions—Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Minister of Fisheries—but those are titles, not achievements. His time in government has been marked by mediocrity, not bold action. When Canadians are looking for real solutions to real problems, LeBlanc offers nothing but recycled talking points and stale ideas.

Then there’s the optics. LeBlanc has been so closely tied to Trudeau’s Liberal machine that he can’t credibly distance himself from the failures of this government. He’s part of the same crew that gave us the carbon tax, the skyrocketing cost of living, and endless virtue-signaling while ordinary Canadians struggle to make ends meet. Does anyone seriously believe Dominic LeBlanc is going to suddenly chart a new course? Of course not.

And let’s not forget his style—or lack thereof. LeBlanc might be affable, even charming, but Canadians don’t need a nice guy right now. They need someone who can go toe-to-toe with Pierre Poilievre, who can articulate a vision and fight for it. LeBlanc’s affability won’t cut it in the bare-knuckle world of federal politics. He’s a backroom operator, not a front-line fighter, and that’s exactly why he’ll fail.

The truth is, Dominic LeBlanc is just more of the same. He represents the same tired Liberal brand that Canadians are desperate to move on from. If the Liberals think he’s the man to save their party, they’re not just wrong—they’re delusional.


Mélanie Joly: The Walking Diplomatic Disaster

 

Let’s move on to Mélanie Joly, our current Foreign Affairs Minister. The idea of Joly leading the Liberal Party is about as absurd as her recent diplomatic escapades. Competence? Let’s just say her track record doesn’t inspire confidence.

Take her visit to China—a masterclass in accomplishing absolutely nothing. Instead of tackling real issues like strained relations or economic disputes, she delivered a lecture on global security, a topic where Canada’s influence is as impactful as a paper straw in a hurricane. Critics have called her approach “parochial arrogance,” and it’s hard to disagree.

Her stance on Israel is equally troubling. At a time when Canada’s allies need consistent support, Joly’s vacillating positions have left us looking like fair-weather friends. Leadership demands decisiveness, and Joly has shown none.

Perhaps most telling, though, was her behavior during a press conference about the killing of Ripudaman Singh Malik. Laughing during such a serious moment? That’s not just unprofessional—it’s downright embarrassing.


François-Philippe Champagne: The Opportunist Extraordinaire

 

Next up, François-Philippe Champagne, the Minister of Innovation. If you thought we couldn’t do worse, Champagne is here to prove you wrong.

Let’s start with his judgment—or lack thereof. Champagne defended the leadership of a federal green fund under his watch despite allegations of corruption, including a $217,000 subsidy granted to the chair’s own company. When pressed, he claimed there wasn’t enough “evidence” to take action, even as the Auditor General launched a review. That’s not oversight—it’s negligence.

Then there’s his economic vision—or lack thereof. Champagne is the face of the government’s $100 billion electric vehicle strategy, a plan that critics say is wildly ambitious and hopelessly vague. Champagne, of course, blamed critics for “lacking vision and ambition.” Classic deflection.

And let’s not forget his political opportunism. Speculation about his potential run for Quebec’s Liberal Party leadership showed exactly where his priorities lie: not with Canadians, but with his own career.

Champagne represents everything Canadians are fed up with—self-serving politicians who deflect criticism and prioritize optics over outcomes.


Chrystia Freeland: Trudeau’s Economic Doppelgänger

 

Finally, we come to Chrystia Freeland, the former Finance Minister and Trudeau’s right hand. If you thought the Liberals couldn’t dig deeper into their fiscal hole, Freeland is here to prove you wrong.

Freeland has been at the helm of Trudeau’s disastrous economic policies, including ballooning deficits and a national debt that now makes Greece look frugal. Her resignation letter criticized Trudeau’s strategies as “costly political gimmicks,” but let’s be real—she helped craft those gimmicks. Canadians want fiscal responsibility, not a continuation of Trudeau’s tax-and-spend circus.

On top of her economic failures, Freeland’s personality is a problem. Arrogant, unlikable, and out of touch, she’s more interested in impressing global elites than connecting with everyday Canadians. Her academic pedigree might dazzle the Davos crowd, but here at home, it reeks of elitism.

Freeland isn’t a solution to the Liberals’ problems—she’s the embodiment of them.


Christy Clark: meh…

BC Premier Christy Clark Lacks Moral Compass - Rafe Mair - Easton Spectator

Alright, let’s get into it, folks. Christy Clark as the potential savior of the Liberal Party—now there’s a plot twist that could almost be entertaining, if it weren’t so doomed from the start. On paper, she might seem like the only grown-up in the room, but let’s not kid ourselves: the Liberal Party is so far gone, even Houdini couldn’t rescue them, and Christy Clark is no Houdini.

First off, let’s be clear about why she’s the better option. Compared to the usual lineup of Trudeau loyalists and globalist placeholders, Clark actually knows how to run something. She was the Premier of British Columbia, and say what you will about her record—because trust me, we’ll get to that—she has actual executive experience. She’s been out of the federal Liberal swamp long enough that the Trudeau stink doesn’t cling to her quite as badly. That’s about the only thing she has going for her: she’s not Dominic LeBlanc or Mark Carney. High bar, I know.

But here’s the thing: being the best option in a lineup of disasters isn’t exactly a glowing endorsement. Sure, Christy Clark is seasoned, but let’s not forget her own record in British Columbia. Yes, she balanced budgets, but she did so by relying on one-time asset sales and riding the wave of a hot real estate market. That’s not fiscal wizardry—it’s just lucky timing. And let’s not gloss over the accusations of cronyism and catering to corporate interests that plagued her government. Sound familiar? It’s Trudeau-lite with a West Coast twist.

And here’s the real kicker: even if Clark were a political genius (spoiler: she’s not), the Liberal brand is so tainted that it wouldn’t matter. Eight years of Justin Trudeau have left Canadians disillusioned, angry, and desperate for change. The scandals, the carbon taxes, the virtue-signaling—it’s all become synonymous with the Liberal Party. Clark can try to distance herself all she wants, but at the end of the day, she’s still carrying the baggage of a party Canadians are ready to toss in the trash.

Let’s also not forget that Clark isn’t exactly the fresh face the Liberals need. She’s a seasoned politician, sure, but that’s part of the problem. After Trudeau’s reign of elitist arrogance, Canadians aren’t looking for another career politician who’s part of the same broken system. Clark might be different from Trudeau, but she’s not different enough.

And then there’s the elephant in the room: Pierre Poilievre. Poilievre has built his brand on taking down exactly the kind of big-government, tax-happy policies that Clark has championed in the past. She might be able to hold her own in debates, but against Poilievre’s laser-focused messaging and grassroots momentum, Clark would get steamrolled.

The bottom line? Christy Clark might be the least-worst option for the Liberals, but that’s not saying much. Her record is spotty, her appeal is limited, and she’s tied to a party that’s become a political punchline. The Liberals can try to rebrand all they want, but with Clark at the helm, they’re just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.


Final Thoughts

Alright, Canada, let’s wrap this up because, honestly, there’s only so much you can say about a sinking ship. The Liberal Party is done. Finished. Kaput. The Angus Reid poll has spoken—16% support. Sixteen percent! That’s not just a bad showing; that’s the kind of number you’d expect from a fringe party running on mandatory pineapple pizza. The Liberals aren’t just losing—they’re disintegrating in real-time, and frankly, it’s been a long time coming.

Justin Trudeau, the captain of this catastrophe, is standing on the deck of the SS Liberal, looking for a lifeboat as the iceberg rips through the hull. His approval rating is at a laughable 28%, his party is in open revolt, and his so-called successors are all lined up like passengers fighting over the last spot on the Titanic. Chrystia Freeland? Jumped ship. Mark Carney? A banker trying to steer a political dumpster fire. Dominic LeBlanc? Trudeau’s yes-man without an ounce of originality.

Let’s be clear—this isn’t a leadership race; it’s a race to see who gets to be the face of a historic collapse. The Liberal brand is so tainted, so toxic, that no amount of rebranding or fresh faces is going to fix it. Canadians are done. They’re fed up with the taxes, the spending, the hypocrisy, and the endless lecturing from a party that’s done nothing but drive this country into the ground.

And you know what? Thank God. Thank God we’re finally closing this ugly chapter of Canadian history. The SS Liberal Party is going down, and no amount of spin can save it. Here’s to 2025—a fresh start, a new chapter, and hopefully, the end of Trudeau and everything he stands for.

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Crime

The Left Thinks Drug Criminalization Is Racist. Minorities Disagree

Published on

[This article was originally published in City Journal, a public policy magazine and website published by the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research]

By Adam Zivo

A Canadian poll finds that racial minorities don’t believe drug enforcement is bigoted.

Is drug prohibition racist? Many left-wing institutions seem to think so. But their argument is historically illiterate—and it contradicts recent polling data, too, which show that minorities overwhelmingly reject that view.

Policies and laws are tools to establish order. Like any tool, they can be abused. The first drug laws in North America, dating back to the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, arguably fixated on opium as a legal pretext to harass Asian immigrants, for example. But no reasonable person would argue that laws against home invasion, murder, or theft are “racist” because they have been misapplied in past cases. Absent supporting evidence, leaping from “this tool is sometimes used in racist ways” to “this tool is essentially racist” is kindergarten-level reasoning.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Yet this is precisely what institutions and activist groups throughout the Western world have done. The Drug Policy Alliance, a U.S.-based organization, suggests that drug prohibition is rooted in “racism and fear.” Harm Reduction International, a British NGO, argues for legalization on the grounds that drug prohibition entrenches “racialized hierarchies, which were established under colonial control and continue to dominate today.” In Canada, where I live, the top public health official in British Columbia, our most drug-permissive province, released a pro-legalization report last summer claiming that prohibition is “based on a history of racism, white supremacy, paternalism, colonialism, classism and human rights violations.”

These claims ignore how drug prohibition has been and remains popular in many non-European societies. Sharia law has banned the use of mind-altering substances since the seventh century. When Indigenous leaders negotiated treaties with Canadian colonists in the late 1800s, they asked for  “the exclusion of fire water (whiskey)” from their communities. That same century, China’s Qing Empire banned opium amid a national addiction crisis. “Opium is a poison, undermining our good customs and morality,” the Daoguang emperor wrote in an 1810 edict.

Today, Asian and Muslim jurisdictions impose much stiffer penalties on drug offenders than do Western nations. In countries like China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Singapore, and Thailand, addicts and traffickers are given lengthy prison sentences or executed. Meantime, in Canada and the United States, de facto decriminalization has left urban cores littered with syringes and shrouded in clouds of meth.

The anti-drug backlash building in North America appears to be spearheaded by racial minorities. When Chesa Boudin, San Francisco’s former district attorney, was recalled in 2022, support for his ouster was highest among Asian voters. Last fall, 73 percent of Latinos backed California’s Proposition 36, which heightened penalties for drug crimes, while only 58 percent of white respondents did.

In Canada, the first signs of a parallel trend emerged during Vancouver’s 2022 municipal election, where an apparent surge in Chinese Canadian support helped install a slate of pro-police candidates. Then, in British Columbia’s provincial election last autumn, nonwhite voters strongly preferred the BC Conservatives, who campaigned on stricter drug laws. And in last month’s federal election, within both Vancouver and Toronto’s metropolitan areas, tough-on-crime conservatives received considerable support from South Asian communities.

These are all strong indicators that racial minorities do not, in fact, universally favor drug legalization. But their small population share means there is relatively little polling data to measure their preferences. Since only 7.6 percent of Americans are Asian, for example, a poll of 1,000 randomly selected people will yield an average of only 76 Asian respondents—too small a sample from which to draw meaningful conclusions. You can overcome this barrier by commissioning very large polls, but that’s expensive.

Nonetheless, last autumn, the Centre for Responsible Drug Policy (a nonprofit I founded and operate) did just that. In partnership with the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, we contracted Mainstreet Research to ask over 12,000 British Columbians: “Do you agree or disagree that criminalizing drugs is racist?”

The results undermine progressives’ assumptions. Only 26 percent of nonwhite respondents agreed (either strongly or weakly) that drug criminalization is racist, while over twice as many (56 percent) disagreed. The share of nonwhite respondents who strongly disagreed was three times larger than the share that strongly agreed (43.2 percent versus 14.3 percent). These results are fairly conclusive for this jurisdiction, given the poll’s sample size of 2,233 nonwhite respondents and a margin of error of 2 percent.

Notably, Indigenous respondents seemed to be the most anti-drug ethnic group: only 20 percent agreed (weakly or strongly) with the “criminalization is racist” narrative, while 61 percent disagreed. Once again, those who disagreed were much more vehement than those who agreed. With a sample size of 399 respondents, the margin of error here (5 percent) is too small to confound these dramatic results.

We saw similar outcomes for other minority groups, such as South Asians, Southeast Asians, Latinos, and blacks. While Middle Eastern respondents also seemed to follow this trend, the poll included too few of them to draw definitive conclusions. Only East Asians were divided on the issue, though a clear majority still disagreed that criminalization is racist.

As this poll was limited to British Columbian respondents, our findings cannot necessarily be assumed to hold throughout Canada and the United States. But since the province is arguably the most drug-permissive jurisdiction within the two countries, these results could represent the ceiling of pro-drug, anti-criminalization attitudes among minority communities.

Legalization proponents and their progressive allies take pride in being “anti-racist.” Our polling, however, suggests that they are not listening to the communities they profess to care about.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Invite your friends and earn rewards

If you enjoy The Bureau, share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.

Invite Friends

Continue Reading

C2C Journal

Canada Desperately Needs a Baby Bump

Published on

By Michael Bonner

The 21 st century is going to be overshadowed by a crisis that human beings have never faced before. I don’t mean war, pestilence, famine or climate change. Those are perennial troubles. Yes, even climate change, despite the hype, is nothing new as anyone who’s heard of the Roman Warm Period, the Mediaeval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age will know. Climate change and the others are certainly problems, but they aren’t new.

But the crisis that’s coming is new.

The global decline in fertility rates has grown so severe that some demographers now talk about “peak humanity” – a looming maximum from which the world’s population will begin to rapidly decline. Though the doomsayers who preach the dangers of overpopulation may think that’s a good development, it is in fact a grave concern.

In the Canadian context, it is doubly worrisome. Our birth rates have been falling steadily since 1959. It was shortly after that in the 1960s when we began to build a massive welfare state, and we did so despite a shrinking domestically-born population and the prospect of an ever-smaller pool of taxable workers to pay for the expanding social programs.

Immigration came to the rescue, and we became adept at recruiting a surplus population of young, skilled, economically focused migrants seeking their fortune abroad. The many newcomers meant a growing population and with it a larger tax base.

But what would happen if Canada could no longer depend on a steady influx of newcomers? The short answer is that our population would shrink, and our welfare state would come under intolerable strain. The long answer is that Canadian businesses, which have become addicted to abundant, cheap foreign labour through the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, would be obliged to invest in hiring, training and retaining Canadian workers.
Provincial and federal governments would scramble to keep older Canadians in the workforce for longer. And governments would be torn between demands to cut the welfare state or privatize large parts of it while raising taxes to help pay for it.

No matter what, the status quo won’t continue. And – even though Canada is right now taking in record numbers of new immigrants and temporary workers – we are going to discover this soon. The main cause is the “peak humanity” that I mentioned before. Fertility rates are falling rapidly nearly everywhere. In the industrialized West, births have fallen further in some places than in others, but all countries are now below replacement levels
(except Israel, which was at 2.9 in 2020).

Deaths have long been outpacing births in China, Japan and some Western countries like Italy. A recent study in The Lancet expects that by 2100, 97 percent of countries will be shrinking. Only Western and Eastern sub-Saharan Africa will have birth rates above replacement levels, though births will be falling in those regions also.

In a world of sub-replacement fertility, there will still be well-educated, highly skilled people abroad. But there will not be a surplus of them. Some may still be ready and willing to put down roots in Canada, but the number will soon be both small and dwindling. And it seems likely that countries which have produced Canada’s immigrants in recent years will try hard to retain domestic talent as their own populations decline. In contrast, the population of sub-Saharan Africa will be growing for a little longer. But unless education and skills-training change drastically in that region, countries there will not produce the kind of skilled immigrants that Canada has come to rely on.

And so the moment is rapidly approaching when immigration will no longer be able to make up for falling Canadian fertility. Governments will have to confront the problem directly—not years or decades hence, but now.

While many will cite keeping the welfare state solvent as the driving force, in my view this is not the reason to do it. The reason to do it is that it is in Canada’s national interest to make it easier for families to have the number of children that they want. A 2023 study by the think-tank Cardus found that nearly half of Canadian women at the end of their reproductive years had fewer children than they had wanted. This amounted to an average
of 0.5 fewer children per woman – a shortfall that would lift Canada close to replacement level.

The United Nations Population Fund (UNPF) has noticed the same challenge on a global scale. Neither Cardus nor the UNPF prescribes any specific solutions, but their analysis points to the same thing: public policy should focus on identifying and removing barriers families face to having the number of children they want.

Every future government should be vigilant against impediments to family-formation and raising a desired number of children. Making housing more abundant and affordable would surely be a good beginning. Better planning must go into making livable communities (not merely atomized dwellings) with infrastructure favouring families and designed to ease commuting. But more fundamentally, policy-makers will need to ask and answer an uncomfortable question: why did we allow barriers to fertility to arise in the first place?

The original, full-length version of this article was recently published in C2C Journal.

Michael Bonner is a political consultant with Atlas Strategic Advisors, LLC, contributing editor to the Dorchester Review, and author of In Defense of Civilization: How Our Past Can Renew Our Present.

Continue Reading

Trending

X