Mark Carney’s Shocking Debate Meltdown

Todayville

Published

2 months ago

10 minute read

Dan Knght

From Hamas Blunders to French Fumbles, the Globalist Golden Boy Crumbles on Stage

We had the French-language Liberal leadership debate last night, and let me tell you, folks—it was a sight to behold. Picture a stage in Montreal, packed with career politicians and establishment darlings, all vying to replace Justin Trudeau. The stakes? Enormous. The Liberal Party is on the verge of collapse, Donald Trump is looming over the border with trade war threats, and Canada’s economy is circling the drain. So, naturally, this was their big moment—a chance to prove they have what it takes to lead the country.

And then there was Mark Carney. The globalist golden boy. The guy the elites have been grooming for years. Former Bank of Canada boss, UN climate czar, best friends with every billionaire and bureaucrat from Davos to Brussels. If there’s anyone who should be able to handle a debate, it’s this guy. And yet?

He crashed. Hard. Because what we saw at the French-language Liberal leadership debate was nothing short of a political car crash—one that Mark Carney, the globalist golden boy, drove straight into a ditch. You’d think the guy who ran the Bank of Canada, played footsie with the UN, and spent years circling the elite cocktail party circuit would be able to handle a few tough questions. But no. Instead, we got a masterclass in stammering, dodging, and faceplanting in real-time.

Let’s start with the Hamas gaffe—because, oh boy, this was a doozy. They’re debating Canada’s stance on Israel and Palestine, and Carney, struggling through his Google Translate French, blurts out: “We all agree on Hamas on a two state.” Wait—what? Did he just say the Liberals agree with Hamas? Even Karina Gould, Trudeau’s handpicked heir-in-waiting, had to jump in and clean up his mess: “No, we don’t agree with the solution. We’re against Hamas.” Folks, this is a guy who’s spent decades rubbing elbows with world leaders, and he just accidentally aligned himself with a terrorist organization on live TV. The guy’s supposed to be an economic genius, but apparently, he can’t even manage basic sentence structure. And in Quebec? Where fluency in French actually matters? This wasn’t just a gaffe—it was an open admission that he’s an outsider with a script, and he can’t even read it right.

Then there’s the Quebec constitution debacle. Simple question: Will you recognize a Quebec constitution and Bill 96? You know, the law that cracks down on English like it’s a public health crisis? Carney’s answer? “I’m not a lawyer. I’m not a constitutional expert either. I’m a progressive.” Oh, that’s just rich. He’s not a lawyer, folks—just the guy who ran Canada’s central bank and negotiated international finance deals. But suddenly, when he’s asked to take a stand, he’s just a humble progressive. Meanwhile, Frank Baylis, the only candidate with a spine, calls Bill 96 “discriminatory” right to the camera, while Freeland and Gould trot out their usual Charter of Rights shtick. Carney? He pivots to attacking Pierre Poilievre for cutting CBC funding. Absolutely pathetic. In Montreal, dodging this question isn’t just cowardly—it’s political malpractice.

And what about the carbon tax? This is supposed to be Carney’s big moment. He’s the UN Climate Envoy, the guy who lectures entire countries about going green. So what does he say? “I’ll be canceling it on consumers and small businesses… replacing it with a system where big polluters pay.” Oh, wonderful. Except—what system? No details, no numbers, no real plan. Just a vague promise to make “big polluters” foot the bill. Sounds nice, but where have we heard this before? Oh right—every failed Liberal climate promise since 2015. Meanwhile, Gould is throwing out “15% emissions cuts” like it’s gospel, and Freeland is hammering home how Trudeau’s carbon tax saved Canada from climate doom. But Carney? Mr. Green Energy himself? He whiffs it.

And let’s not forget Energy East. With Trump ramping up tariffs and economic pressure, they ask the big question: Should Canada revive an east-west pipeline through Quebec? Carney’s answer? “It’s possible… if it’s in the interests of the whole country.” What does that even mean? “Possible”? “If”? Baylis, to his credit, comes out swinging—promising two gas pipelines and arguing they’d be good for both the economy and the environment. Freeland and Gould talk about “resilience” and “indigenous consultation” while sidestepping specifics. But Carney? He just flails around, dropping vague one-liners about being “masters in our own house.” Quebecers hate pipelines—we all know that—but if he had a real stance, he’d say it. Instead, he hedges like a man waiting for a pollster to whisper in his ear.

Then there’s his closing statement—his last shot to sell himself as Canada’s next leader. What does he deliver? “I’m not a career politician. I’m a pragmatist… Canada’s given me everything, I’m ready to give my all.”

Oh, give me a break. This has got to be the most insulting, hollow, out-of-touch line of the night. Carney is literally running to be prime minister, and somehow, he expects us to believe he’s not a politician? That’s like a guy auditioning for American Idol and claiming he’s not a singer. No, Mark—you’re a politician now. You’re begging for votes. You’re standing on stage, pandering like the rest of them. Own it.

And beyond the blatant dishonesty, let’s talk about how flat it all was. Baylis is out there promising the “best health system in the world” and pledging his loyalty to Quebec. Gould is hyping up “innovators and dreamers,” painting some grand Liberal utopia. Freeland? She’s going full war cry—rallying 400,000 Liberals against Trump like she’s leading a resistance movement. But Carney? He sounds like an AI-generated LinkedIn post. No passion, no fire, no vision. Just another soulless technocrat, hoping to win by default.

Look, I get it—Carney is the establishment’s dream. The global elites adore him. He’s got the right credentials, the right connections, and the charisma of a soggy paper towel. The guy spent decades shuffling between central banks and UN climate panels, never breaking a sweat, never making a tough call. But last night? Thrown into an actual political fight? He flopped harder than a beached fish.

If he can’t even hold his own in a controlled Liberal debate—against his own party, in front of a friendly audience—how on earth is he going to stand up to Donald Trump? Seriously. The guy panicked over a Quebec language question and somehow accidentally implied the Liberals support Hamas. Hamas! You think this man is ready to stare down the White House? To negotiate trade deals? To lead a country in crisis? Please.

If the Liberals are looking for a leader with real backbone, they’d better think twice before crowning this guy. Because if this performance was any indication—Carney’s not the future. This wasn’t a leader. This was a clipboard-carrying bureaucrat trying to convince us he’s Winston Churchill.

And if this is what the Liberals want to put up against Trump, Poilievre, or even a toaster with a personality, they’re in for a brutal, humiliating, can’t-look-away kind of reality check.

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Related Topics:#DanKnight #TheOppositionNewsNetwork feature LiberalFrenchDebate LiberalLeadership MarkCarneyDebate

Up Next

The NSA’s Secret Sex Chats

Don't Miss

Trump to Counter Foreign Social Media Censorship Demands and Defend Free Speech Online

Todayville

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

Hours after Liberal election win, Alberta Prosperity Project drumming up interest in referendum

2025 Federal Election / 7 hours ago

Post election…the chips fell where they fell

Banks / 7 hours ago

TD Bank Account Closures Expose Chinese Hybrid Warfare Threat

2025 Federal Election

Post election…the chips fell where they fell

Published on April 29, 2025

Todayville

From William’s Substack

William Lacey

I put a lot of personal energy into this election, trying to understand why it was that Canadians so wholeheartedly endorsed Mark Carney as their new leader, despite the fact that it was the same party who caused irreparable economic harm to the economy, and he has a similar philosophical outlook to the core outlook of the party. I truly believe that we have moved to a phase in our electoral process where, until something breaks, left leaning ideology will trump the day (pun intended).

Coming out of this election I have three questions.

1. What of Pierre Poilievre? The question for Conservatives is whether the wolves feed on the carcass of Poilievre (in my opinion the worst enemy of a Conservative is a Conservative) and initiate the hunt for a new leader (if they do, I believe the future should be led by a woman – Melissa Lantsman or possibly Caroline Mulroney), or does Poilievre move to Alberta and run for a “safe” seat to get back into the House of Commons, change his tone, and show people he too can be Prime Ministerial? His concession speech gives clues to this.

2. What of Mark Carney? Maybe (hopefully) Carney will see the light and try to bring the nation together, as there is an obvious east-west split in the country in terms of politics. Time will tell, and minority governments need to be cautious. Will we have a Supply and Confidence 2.0 or will we see olive branches extended?

3. What of the House of Commons? As I have mentioned previously, there has been discussion that the House of Commons may not sit until after the summer break, meaning that the House of Commons really will not have conducted any business in almost a year by the time it reconveens. If indeed “we are in the worst crisis of our lives” as Prime Minister Carney campaigned on, then should we not have the House of Commons sit through the summer? After all, the summer break usually is for politicians to go back to their ridings and connect with their constituents, but if an election campaign doesn’t constitute connecting, what does?

Regardless, as the election is behind us, we now need to see what comes. I will try to be hopeful, but remain cautious. May Canada have better days ahead.

Thanks for reading William’s Substack!

Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Pledge your support

2025 Federal Election

In Defeat, Joe Tay’s Campaign Becomes a Flashpoint for Suspected Voter Intimidation in Canada

Published on April 29, 2025

Todayville

Sam Cooper

Canadian police initiated review of campaign complaint.

In one of the most closely scrutinized races of Canada’s 2025 federal election, Joseph Tay—the Conservative candidate identified by federal authorities as the target of aggressive Chinese election interference operations—was defeated Monday night in Don Valley North by Liberal Maggie Chi, following a campaign marred by threats, suspected intimidation, and digital suppression efforts.

The Bureau has learned that Canadian police last week reviewed complaints alleging that members of Tay’s campaign team were shadowed in an intimidating manner while canvassing in the final days of the race. The status of the incident review remains unclear.

With over 20,000 votes—a 43 percent share compared to 53 percent for Liberal Maggie Chi—Tay nearly doubled the Conservative Party’s 2021 vote total of 12,098 in this riding.

Last Monday, federal intelligence officials disclosed that Tay was the subject of a highly coordinated transnational repression operation tied to the People’s Republic of China. The campaign aimed to discredit his candidacy and suppress Chinese Canadian voters’ access to his messaging through cyber and information operations.

That same day, federal police advised Tay to suspend door-to-door canvassing, according to two sources with direct knowledge, citing safety concerns. Several days later, Tay’s campaign reported to police that a man had been trailing a door-knocking team in a threatening manner in a Don Valley North neighbourhood.

Following The Bureau’s reporting, the New York Times wrote on Sunday: “Fearing for his safety, Mr. Tay… has waged perhaps the quietest campaign of any candidate competing in the election. The attacks on Mr. Tay have sought to influence the outcome of the race in Don Valley North, a district with a large Chinese diaspora in Toronto, in what is the most vote-rich region in Canada.”

In a twist, in neighbouring Markham–Unionville, Peter Yuen—the Liberal candidate who replaced former MP Paul Chiang, who had made controversial remarks about Tay being turned over to Chinese officials—was defeated by Conservative candidate Michael Ma. According to Elections Canada’s results, Ma secured the riding by about 2,000 votes.

Tay and his campaign team had conducted extensive groundwork in Markham–Unionville earlier this year, where he publicly announced his intention to seek the Conservative nomination in January. However, the party ultimately assigned him on March 24 to Don Valley North—a riding that, according to the 2024 report of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP), was the site of serious foreign interference by the People’s Republic of China during the 2019 election.

At 2 a.m., Tay posted a message to X thanking supporters: “By God’s grace, though we did not win tonight, we have already won something far greater—the courage to stand, to speak, and to dream together.”

Signaling he may run again, Tay added: “Our journey does not end here. I remain committed to upholding Canadian values—freedom, respect, and community—and will continue to serve and help build a wholesome, principled community in every way I can.”

Last Monday, SITE—Canada’s election-threat monitoring task force—confirmed that Tay was the target of a coordinated online disinformation campaign, warning in briefing materials that “this was not about a single post” but a “deliberate, persistent campaign” designed to distort visibility and suppress legitimate discourse among Chinese-speaking voters.

The tactics bore striking resemblance to interference allegations uncovered by The Bureau during the 2021 federal election, when Conservative MP Bob Saroya was unseated in Markham–Unionville amid allegations that operatives linked to the Chinese government had shadowed Saroya, surveilled his campaign, and sought to intimidate voters. Senior Conservative officials said CSIS provided briefings at the time warning of what they described as “coordinated and alarming” surveillance efforts.

In Tay’s case, official sources confirmed that Chinese-language platforms circulated disinformation framing him as a fugitive, invoking his Hong Kong National Security Law bounty—set at $180,000 CAD—to portray his candidacy as a threat to Canada.

Earlier this month, The Bureau reported that former Liberal MP Paul Chiang—who defeated Conservative incumbent Bob Saroya in 2021—withdrew as a candidate after the RCMP opened a review into remarks he made suggesting that Joe Tay’s election could spark “great controversy” for Canada because of Hong Kong’s national security charges, and that Tay could be handed over to the Chinese consulate to collect a bounty. Chiang later apologized, describing the comments as a poorly judged joke. However, prominent diaspora organizations and human rights groups condemned the remarks as a disturbing example of rhetoric echoing transnational repression.

According to SITE assessments reviewed by The Bureau, coordinated suppression efforts were particularly acute in Don Valley North, where Tay’s online visibility was sharply curtailed across Chinese-language social media ecosystems.

The status of the RCMP’s review into Chiang’s remarks—and a separate complaint to Toronto police alleging that Tay’s campaign staff may have been intimidated while canvassing—remains unclear.

With Mark Carney’s Liberals securing a narrow minority and Canada’s political landscape growing increasingly polarized—against the backdrop of an intensifying cold war between Washington and Beijing—some pundits predict voters could be heading back to the polls sooner than expected. Whether election threat reviewers will now dig deeper into China’s suspected interference in this and other ridings remains an open question.