National
Crowning the Captain of a Sinking Ship: Who Will Be the Next Liberal Leader?
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…
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.
Business
Pulling back the curtain on the Carney government’s first budget
From the Fraser Institute
By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro
The Carney government will spend more, run larger deficits and accumulate more debt than was previously planned by the Trudeau government.
In the 1939 film the Wizard of Oz, Dorothy and her companions travel to the Emerald City to meet the famous Wizard of Oz who will solve all their problems. When first entering the Wizard’s chambers, the group sees a giant ghostly head that meets their expectations of the “Great and Powerful Oz.” However, later on in the film (much to their disappointment) we learn that the Wizard is nothing more than an ordinary man operating a machine behind a curtain.
Canadians might feel a similar kind of disappointment about the Carney government’s first budget tabled on Tuesday. Prime Minister Carney promised a “very different approach” than that of his predecessor regarding Ottawa’s finances, and at first glance the budget appears to be this new approach. But when you pull back the curtain, it’s simply an escalation of the same failed fiscal policies Canadians have suffered for the last decade.
For context, the Trudeau government’s approach to government finances was record-high levels of spending, persistent deficits and massive debt accumulation. The Trudeau government created a fiscal mess, and as a “responsible fiscal manager” the Carney government has promised to clean it up.
To that end, the Carney government now separates spending into two categories: “operating spending” and “capital investment.” Capital investment includes any spending or tax expenditure (e.g. tax credits and deductions) that contribute to the production of an asset (e.g. infrastructure, machinery or equipment). Operating spending includes everything else, and is supposed to represent “day-to-day” government spending.
The government plans to balance the “operating budget”—meaning it will match operating spending to revenue—by 2028/29, while leaving capital investments to be financed through borrowing. Importantly, when calculating the operating balance, the government counts revenues that are foregone due to tax expenditures that are considered to be capital investments.
To help find the savings needed to balance its operating budget by 2028/29, the government initiated a “Comprehensive Expenditure Review” this past summer—the budget reveals the review’s results. Part of the review included a long overdue reduction in the size of the federal public service, as the government will cut 16,000 positions this year, and reach a total reduction of almost 40,000 by 2028/29 compared to levels seen two years ago. As a result of this spending review, the budget projects spending in 2028/29 will be $12.8 billion lower than it otherwise would have been.
This is the fiscal picture the Carney government is focusing on, and the one it undoubtedly wants Canadians to focus on, too. When taken at face value, balancing the operating budget, initiating a spending review, cutting the federal bureaucracy, and focusing on greater investment would certainly appear to be a different approach than the Trudeau government—which made no meaningful effort to balance the budget or restrain spending during its tenure, grew the bureaucracy, and allowed business investment to collapse under its watch.
But here’s the problem. When you pull back the curtain, all the rhetoric and accounting changes are just a way to obscure the fact the Carney government will spend more, run larger deficits and accumulate more debt than was previously planned by the Trudeau government.
Both operating spending and capital investment (which represents either additional spending or foregone revenue) impact the bottom line, and by separating the two the Carney government is simply obscuring the true state of Ottawa’s finances. If we ignore the government’s sleight of hand and instead compare total government spending against the revenues that are actually collected, the true size of the budget deficit this year is expected to equal $78.3 billion. Not only is that considerably more than the “operating” deficit the government is focusing on, it’s also nearly double the $42.2 billion deficit that was originally planned by the Trudeau government.
The story is similar for years to come. While the Carney government claims it will balance the operating budget by 2028/29, the overall deficit will be $57.9 billion that year. Over the four years from 2025/26 to 2028/29, overall deficits under the Carney government will equal a combined $265.1 billion. In comparison, the Trudeau government had only planned to run deficits equaling a combined $131.4 billion during those same four years—meaning the Carney government plans to borrow more than twice as much as the Trudeau government.
Driving this increase in borrowing is a combination of lower revenues and higher spending. From 2025/26 to 2028/29, the Carney government expects to collect $70.5 billion fewer revenues than the Trudeau government had previously projected. This difference likely comes down to a combination of the economic impact of U.S. tariffs along with various tax measures implemented by the Carney government that lower revenues (including cancelling a proposed increase to capital gains taxes and cutting the bottom federal personal income tax rate).
On the flip side, the Carney government plans to spend $63.4 billion more in total than the Trudeau government due to the introduction of considerable new spending commitments (notably on defence and housing), and the expectation of higher interest payments on its debt. The reality that spending is only set to rise under the Carney government stands in stark contrast to the prime minister’s rhetoric regarding “austerity” and the “ambitious savings” found by the government’s so-called spending review.
Higher spending and larger deficits will help grow the mountain of federal debt. By 2028/29, the Trudeau government had originally projected that total government debt would reach $2.6 trillion—which, based on the budget forecasts, would represent 72.2 per cent of the overall economy. The Carney government’s fiscal plan now puts total federal debt at $2.8 trillion by 2028/29, or 78.6 per cent of the overall economy. For perspective, the last time total federal debt pushed 80 per cent of the economy was during the 1990s when Canada teetered on the brink of a fiscal crisis.
Finally, the government’s approach to spending and the deficit doesn’t seem to be in line with what Canadians wanted to see from this budget. A poll conducted prior to the budget showed that 69 per cent of respondents felt it’s important for the government to balance the budget, compared to just 27 per cent who supported continued deficit spending. In fact, three out of five respondents felt that too much government spending has contributed to the rising cost of living and inflation—the issue they’re most concerned about.
Like a certain Wizard, Prime Minister Carney has made grand promises to fix many of the serious problems facing Canada. At first glance, the Carney government’s first budget may appear to deliver a new plan that will get federal finances back in order. Just pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
Business
Capital Flight Signals No Confidence In Carney’s Agenda
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
By Jay Goldberg
Between bad trade calls and looming deficits, Canada is driving money out just when it needs it most
Canadians voted for relative continuity in April, but investors voted with their wallets, moving $124 billion out of the country.
According to the National Bank, Canadian investors purchased approximately $124 billion in American securities between February and July of this year. At the same time, foreign investment in Canada dropped sharply, leaving the country with a serious hole in its capital base.
As Warren Lovely of National Bank put it, “with non-resident investors aloof and Canadians adding foreign assets, the country has suffered a major capital drain”—one he called “unprecedented.”
Why is this happening?
One reason is trade. Canada adopted one of the most aggressive responses to U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariff agenda. Former prime minister Justin Trudeau imposed retaliatory tariffs on the United States and escalated tensions further by targeting goods covered under the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), something even the Trump administration avoided.
The result was punishing. Washington slapped a 35 per cent tariff on non-CUSMA Canadian goods, far higher than the 25 per cent rate applied to Mexico. That made Canadian exports less competitive and unattractive to U.S. consumers. The effects rippled through industries like autos, agriculture and steel, sectors that rely heavily on access to U.S. markets. Canadian producers suddenly found themselves priced out, and investors took note.
Recognizing the damage, Prime Minister Mark Carney rolled back all retaliatory tariffs on CUSMA-covered goods this summer in hopes of cooling tensions. Yet the 35 per cent tariff on non-CUSMA Canadian exports remains, among the highest the U.S. applies to any trading partner.
Investors saw the writing on the wall. They understood Trudeau’s strategy had soured relations with Trump and that, given Canada’s reliance on U.S. trade, the United States would inevitably come out on top. Parking capital in U.S. securities looked far safer than betting on Canada’s economy under a government playing a weak hand.
The trade story alone explains much of the exodus, but fiscal policy is another concern. Interim Parliamentary Budget Officer Jason Jacques recently called Ottawa’s approach “stupefying” and warned that Canada risks a 1990s-style fiscal crisis if spending isn’t brought under control. During the 1990s, ballooning deficits forced deep program cuts and painful tax hikes. Interest rates soared, Canada’s debt was downgraded and Ottawa nearly lost control of its finances. Investors are seeing warning signs that history could repeat itself.
After months of delay, Canadians finally saw a federal budget on Nov. 4. Jacques had already projected a deficit of $68.5 billion when he warned the outlook was “unsustainable.” National Bank now suggests the shortfall could exceed $100 billion. And that doesn’t include Carney’s campaign promises, such as higher defence spending, which could add tens of billions more.
Deficits of that scale matter. They can drive up borrowing costs, leave less room for social spending and undermine confidence in the country’s long-term fiscal stability. For investors managing pensions, RRSPs or business portfolios, Canada’s balance sheet now looks shaky compared to a U.S. economy offering both scale and relative stability.
Add in high taxes, heavy regulation and interprovincial trade barriers, and the picture grows bleaker. Despite decades of promises, barriers between provinces still make it difficult for Canadian businesses to trade freely within their own country. From differing trucking regulations to restrictions on alcohol distribution, these long-standing inefficiencies eat away at productivity. When combined with federal tax and regulatory burdens, the environment for growth becomes even more hostile.
The Carney government needs to take this unprecedented capital drain seriously. Investors are not acting on a whim. They are responding to structural problems—ill-advised trade actions, runaway federal spending and persistent barriers to growth—that Ottawa has yet to fix.
In the short term, that means striking a deal with Washington to lower tariffs and restore confidence that Canada can maintain stable access to U.S. markets. It also means resisting the urge to spend Canada into deeper deficits when warning lights are already flashing red. Over the long term, Ottawa must finally tackle high taxes, cut red tape and eliminate the bureaucratic obstacles that stand in the way of economic growth.
Capital has choices. Right now, it is voting with its feet, and with its dollars, and heading south. If Canada wants that capital to come home, the government will have to earn it back.
Jay Goldberg is a fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
-
Business1 day agoTrump’s Tariffs Have Not Caused Economy To Collapse
-
Daily Caller1 day agoTrump Reportedly Planning Ground Troops, Drone Strikes On Cartels In Mexico
-
Daily Caller2 days agoNigeria Would Welcome US Intervention In Massacre Of Christians By Islamic Terror Groups
-
Alberta1 day agoAlberta government’s plan will improve access to MRIs and CT scans
-
Brownstone Institute1 day agoBizarre Decisions about Nicotine Pouches Lead to the Wrong Products on Shelves
-
Automotive2 days agoCanada’s EV experiment has FAILED
-
Alberta2 days agoCanada’s heavy oil finds new fans as global demand rises
-
Bruce Dowbiggin2 days agoA Story So Good Not Even The Elbows Up Crew Could Ruin It











