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

Business

Ottawa Bought Jobs That Disappeared: Paying for Trudeau’s EV Gamble

Published on

Marco Navarro-Génie's avatar Marco Navarro-Génie

The jobs promised by the thousands never arrived. The debacle of Trudeau’s gamble in the EV sector offers a dire warning about Carney’s plans to “invest” in the economy of the future.

Every age invents new names for old mistakes. Ours calls them investments. Before the Carney government reluctantly unveils its November budget and promises another future paid for in advance, Canadians should remember Ingersoll, one of the last places their leaders tried to buy tomorrow.

In December 2022, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told Canadians that government backing would help General Motors turn its Ingersoll plant into a beacon of green industry [See image above]. “We made investments to help GM retool this plant,” he wrote online, “and by 2025 it will be producing fifty thousand electric vehicles per year.” [That would mean 137 vehicles each day, or about six vehicles every hour]. It sounded like renewal. Supposedly, this was how the innumerate prime minister was building the economy of the future. In truth, it became an expensive demonstration of how progressive governments love to peddle rampant spending for sound strategy (1)(2).

On the whole, the Trudeau government boasted of having pledged over $50 billion in subsidies to various companies in the EV sector, some of which are failing and most of which are scaling down and exporting production capability to the US. The much-promised benefits have not materialized (3).

The specific Ingersoll plan began with 259 million dollars from Ottawa through the Strategic Innovation Fund and the Net Zero Accelerator. Ontario matched it with another 259 million. The half-billion-plus subsidy financed the plant’s switch from gasoline-powered Equinox production to BrightDrop electric delivery vans. Added to that were the usual incentives: research credits, accelerated write-downs, and energy subsidies. The promise was the mythical creation of thousands of “good middle-class jobs” (4)(5).

At the time, the CAMI Assembly plant employed about two thousand workers. When it closed for retooling in 2022, employment fell to almost none. The reopening in 2023 restored roughly 1,600 across two shifts. A year later, as orders slowed, one shift was cut and employment fell to about 1,300. By early 2025, layoffs cut the number to around eight hundred, and by October that year, when GM confirmed the end of BrightDrop production, fewer than seven hundred remained. The workforce had collapsed by nearly two-thirds from its pre-electric-vehicle conversion level. In statistical terms, two of the three employees the PM used for the photo-op in Ingersoll three years ago are unemployed today. That’s some economic performance.

The numbers expose the illusion. With 518 million dollars in public funds and only about 3,500 vans built in 2024, taxpayers paid about 148 thousand dollars for each vehicle GM produced. Counting only the federal contribution still yields $74,000 per van. Divided by the remaining jobs, the subsidy works out to more than half a million dollars per worker. The arithmetic refutes the fantasy of Prime Minister Trudeau’s speeches (10).

We are in 2025. Today is the future the Liberals promised the country. Neither Ottawa nor Queen’s Park will dwell on the above-stated facts today. When Crown Royal closed a plant in 2024, Premier Ford posed before the cameras and dumped a bottle of whisky to protest lost jobs. Now that a multinational massively subsidized by his own government has cut its workforce in Ingersoll by two-thirds, he will not torch a van or denounce General Motors from the front steps of Queen’s Park. It is easier to rage at private enterprise than to admit one’s own complicity (11).

The failure in Ingersoll was entirely predictable. Government enthusiasm outran commercial sense. The BrightDrop vans entered a market already filled by cheaper competitors in the United States and Asia. Demand never met expectation. Parking lots filled with unsold inventory. A company that lives by numbers did the rational thing: it slowed production, cut staff, and left. The Canadian taxpayer, bound by law and habit, stays behind to pay the bill (12).

The story reveals the weakness of Canada’s industrial policy and the ignorance of its political class. Instead of creating conditions for enterprise, such as reliable energy, stable regulation, and moderate taxes, progressive governments spend on applause. They judge success by the number of jobs announced, yet those very jobs vanish once the cameras go home. When the invoices arrive, they are paid by citizens, not by those who made the promises.

Subsidy breeds its own demand. Once one firm is rewarded, others line up to ask for the same. Lobbying replaces competition. Politicians, afraid to seem heartless, keep writing cheques. Each new administration claims to be more strategic than the last, yet the pattern persists. Canada announces, subsidizes, and retreats. No country ever bought its way into competitiveness, and none ever will.

Trudeau once said his government had “bet big on electric vehicles.” Betting big with other people’s money is not vision but gambling. The wager was not on technology or productivity but on narrative, on the naive idea that a moral intention [to save the planet] could replace market reality. The result was fewer jobs, a product the market did not want, and a claim of success that no longer convinced anyone. But Ontarians gave him their vote for it (1).


Haultain Research is a reader-supported publication.

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


Premier Ford deserves no exemption. He campaigned on fiscal restraint and common sense, then followed Ottawa’s lead as if confused by his own rhetoric. His government’s matching subsidy gave the federal scheme the appearance of consensus; he legitimized the scheme. When it failed, he shared the liability and the silence. To underwrite failure once is an error; that they keep repeating it for political cover while the public supports them is folly (11).

Industrial policy in a free society should respect the limits of government competence and resist the fantasy of juvenile ideology. The state can uphold contract law and ensure that citizens have the skills to compete. It has a mixed record in building infrastructure. It cannot direct markets better than those who live or die by them. When it tries, it presents the size of a grant for the value of a result. Governments announce job numbers because they are visible. Productivity and value creation are not. Yet it is productivity that sustains work and dignity, not the temporary employment that disappears when the subsidy runs out or when the companies betray the deal.

The Ingersoll experiment also exposes a moral weakness that the public often falls for. Spending is treated as proof of caring. Subsidy is renamed investment (more on this coming soon). Failure is described as transition. When costs rise and goals vanish, the story is rewritten as a necessary learning curve. Yet nothing is learned, because the same people who lost public money yesterday are trusted with more tomorrow. That is not innovation but inertia.

A free economy does not need bribery to breathe. It requires the discipline of risk and the liberty to fail without dragging a country with it. Ingersoll was not undone by technology but by conceit. Prosperity cannot be decreed, and markets cannot be commanded into obedience.

That was Trudeau, the current PMO occupants will say. But Mark Carney has mastered the same rhetorical sleight that defined Trudeau’s industrial crusade. Spending becomes “investment,” and programs become “platforms.” Ahead of his first budget, he has declared that his government would “catalyze unprecedented investments in Canada over the next five years,” even as he announced departmental cuts and fiscal restraint. He will invest more and spend less, they say. The vocabulary of ambition disguises the contradiction. Billions for housing, energy, and “resilience” are presented not as costs but as commitments to a “higher” economic purpose. His plan for a new federal housing agency with thirteen billion dollars in start-up capital is billed as an investment in the future, though it is, in substance, immediate public spending under a moral banner (13)(14) they had dragged for years.

Carney’s speeches in Parliament and before cameras follow the same pattern of incantation. “We can build big. Build bold. Build now. Build one Canadian economy,” he told the House in June. In October, he promised that “the decades-long process of an ever-closer economic relationship between the Canadian and U.S. economies is over … we will invest in new infrastructure and industrial capacity to reduce our vulnerabilities.” The cadence of certainty masks the absence of limits, just like Justin’s promises. It’s hubris without ability. In their minds, announcing “investment” becomes a synonym for action itself, and ambition replaces accountability (15).

The structure of this rhetoric is identical to the Ingersoll fiasco. Then, as now, the government announced a future built on “investment,” fifty thousand vehicles a year, thousands of secure jobs, abundant prosperity and a greener tomorrow. Vast sums of money were spent supposedly to create that future before a single market test was conducted. Instead, the result was fewer jobs and no market at all.

Carney’s program of “building the future economy” repeats that template: promise vast returns from state-directed spending, redefine subsidy as vision, and rely on tomorrow to conceal today’s bill. The vocabulary of investment has become the language of evasion, reflecting its etymological origins in the Latin “investire,” which originally meant “to clothe.” In the way that politicians use it today, it is a return to its meaning of concealment. It has become a way to describe the use of public money without admitting the massive risk of loss.

As the Carney government prepares its first budget, Canadians should remember what happened when their leader last tried to buy a future with lavish “investment.” Another round of extravagant spending promises is already upon us: new partnerships, new funds with new names, new assurances that this time will be different.

But it will not be different. Judging by all the pre-budget warnings that “sacrifices will need to be made,” it will be worse. In that warning, Carney presupposes that the elderly who have been choosing between eating and heating their home, mothers standing in line at food banks, the record MAiD users, and the young people who have lost hope of emerging out of parental basements to dwellings they can own have all been lying on a bed of roses this last decade of Liberal rule.

The Ingersoll debacle, a foolishly ideological $500-million-plus gamble, is emblematic, of course. It is just the tip of the Liberals’ iceberg of waste. So when you hear Prime Minister Carney tell Canadians they must prepare to sacrifice, remember the long string of Ingersolls his party has gifted this country in recent years. The path of sacrifice the Liberals want now Canadians to walk is paved with the rubble of their own multibillion-dollar blunders.

Every age invents new names for old mistakes, almost as a way to excuse them, and then moves on, but ours invents new names and keeps making the same one over and over again. Entitled hubris knows no bounds.

The Liberal government is already messing up the economy of the present, and they badly botched the economy of the recent past. When using the same strategy clothed in varying language, the economy of the future will not fare better.

Share

Haultain Research is a reader-supported publication.

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

Continue Reading

National

Election Officials Warn MPs: Canada’s Ballot System Is Being Exploited

Published on

The Opposition with Dan Knight

Dan Knight's avatar Dan Knight

At a tense committee hearing, former Chief Electoral Officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley and Quebec’s Jean-François Blanchet told Parliament that “ballot flooding” is undermining public trust

What we just witnessed in Ottawa last week wasn’t a hearing, it was a slow-motion autopsy of Canadian democracy. The Procedure and House Affairs Committee gathered to talk about the so-called “Longest Ballot Committee,” a group of self-styled activists who decided to “protest” the electoral system by flooding ridings with hundreds of fake candidates, turning the act of voting into a bureaucratic endurance test. And what did the political class do about it? They shrugged. They nodded solemnly. They said “shared responsibility.”

In other words: nothing.

Former Elections Canada chief Jean-Pierre Kingsley and Quebec’s electoral officer Jean-François Blanchet were the adults in the room, the only people who seemed to understand what’s actually at stake when you weaponize procedure to destroy trust. Kingsley, who’s been overseeing elections since before most MPs had a LinkedIn page, didn’t mince words: “The Long Ballot Initiative is unjustified and exceedingly disruptive.” In other words, a circus.

He called voting the act that “establishes the very legitimacy of Parliament.” That used to mean something in this country. Now? It’s a joke being played on the people who still believe their vote matters.

Blanchet gave the numbers that should have every Canadian furious , 40 candidates in one riding, 91 in another, 214 in a third. Two hundred and fourteen names. That’s not democracy, that’s sabotage. He called it “a movement to challenge the voting system, not to get candidates elected.” Exactly. It’s the bureaucratic version of an online troll farm.

He told MPs what voters already know: “Overly long ballots irritate voters.” You think? Imagine trying to fold a sheet the size of a blueprint just to cast a vote for your MP. And yet, for this — for actively undermining elections — no one’s been charged, fined, or even reprimanded.

Then Conservative MP Blaine Calkins finally asked the question everyone else was too polite to touch: Should there be penalties for those who make a mockery of our electoral system? Kingsley didn’t hesitate: “Yes.” He said it should go to a court of law, not a bureaucrat, not some anonymous commissioner. A judge. A real trial. Because that’s how serious this is.

Meanwhile, the Liberals on the committee did what they always do, changed the subject. Instead of talking about ballot fraud, they went off about “AI misinformation” and “deepfakes.” Liberal MPs Élisabeth Brière and Arielle Kayabaga wrung their hands about artificial intelligence like it was the Terminator coming for democracy. Never mind that the real problem was sitting right in front of them: a political culture that treats fraud as performance art.

Blanchet dutifully played along, talking about Quebec’s Bill 98, a law that makes it a crime to knowingly spread false information. Sounds good on paper, until he admitted, “Even if there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, we cannot finish the investigation in 33 days.” Translation: if you lie during an election, nothing happens until it’s over.

And who’s responsible for stopping it? According to Blanchet: “It’s a shared responsibility.” That’s bureaucrat-speak for no one is responsible.

Bloc MP Christine Normandin was at least honest enough to ask who really matters in this system — voters, candidates, or bureaucrats. Kingsley’s answer was simple and correct: “The voter.” Not the political parties, not the administrators — the voter. The problem is, no one in Ottawa governs that way anymore.

When Grant Jackson and Tako Van Popta, both Conservatives, pressed Kingsley on practical solutions like verifying signatures, he actually offered real answers. Yes, it can be done. Yes, technology can check duplicates. Yes, people who break the law should face charges in court. Real accountability.

Van Popta even raised the Charter issue. Could the government legally require 100 unique signatures per candidate? Kingsley said yes, it’s constitutional, it’s reasonable, and it doesn’t violate anyone’s rights. In other words, it’s common sense. Which is why Ottawa will probably never do it.

Then came Liberal MP Tim Louis, who managed to turn the entire hearing into a sermon on “media responsibility.” He asked if journalism could “protect democracy.” Kingsley’s response was devastating: put the CRTC in charge of social media. Force foreign platforms to register as third parties under the Elections Act. Make them accountable for what they broadcast into Canada. Sensible, right? But as Blanchet admitted, those companies “don’t care about provincial elections.”

That’s the story right there. The people who run your democracy don’t care about your democracy. The platforms don’t care. The bureaucrats can’t act. And the politicians especially the ones running the country, are too afraid of offending anyone to actually fix it.

So yes, the ballots are too long. The laws are too weak. The enforcement is nonexistent. And the voter the person who’s supposed to come first, is once again dead last.

In the end, Kingsley and Blanchet were the only ones who treated this fiasco like the constitutional crisis it is. Everyone else treated it like a panel discussion at a college campus.

This isn’t about paperwork or procedure. It’s about power, who holds it, who abuses it, and who’s dumb enough to keep pretending that a system this broken still represents the people.

Canada’s elections used to mean something. Now they’re a joke. And the punchline, as always, is on the voter.

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Trending

X