From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Lee Harding

The Liberal Party has crowned Mark Carney leader, but his path to victory is riddled with obstacles

The Liberal Party of Canada has selected a non-MP to become prime minister, but precedent suggests he won’t last long. Mark Carney represents the worst aspects of both John Turner’s and Michael Ignatieff’s political rises and appears destined for the same electoral futility.

When Pierre Trudeau stepped down as Liberal leader in 1984 after more than 15 years as prime minister, he left behind a parting gift: over 200 Liberal patronage appointments. His successor, John Turner, agreed to another 70. These appointments became a burden, weighing down Turner’s leadership before it had even begun. Like Carney, Turner was not a sitting MP when he became leader. Forced to call a snap election, he watched the Progressive Conservatives secure the first of two successive majorities.

Now, history is repeating itself. Justin Trudeau’s cabinet made 70 appointments in its final days, including 12 judges. That number doesn’t include the 10 senators he appointed while Parliament was prorogued—nearly 10 per cent of the 105-seat chamber. Like Turner, Carney must navigate a leadership legacy tainted by patronage and an unpopular outgoing prime minister.

But does Carney’s experience, reputation, and distance from Trudeau offer him a fresh start? It seems unlikely. Unlike Turner, Carney has never held elected office.

Turner at least had a political track record. As a cabinet minister under two prime ministers, he handled high-profile Justice and Finance portfolios. He also benefited from a nine-year break from politics, distancing himself from the unpopular Trudeau. None of it mattered. Turner still lost.

Liberals hope Carney can ride a wave of popularity after a dominant leadership victory, securing 85 per cent support. But what did he really win? A former central banker, he climbed atop a heap of ruins.

His victory over Chrystia Freeland, Karina Gould, and former MP Frank Baylis was less a competitive race and more a coronation. Freeland carried the baggage of Trudeau’s policies, while the other two lacked national recognition. Carney, the only contender without direct ties to Trudeau’s government, was the default choice. The Liberal Party is adrift, and he simply took the helm.

But winning an uncontested leadership race is no guarantee of electoral success. Turner’s rise in 1984 was far more hard-fought—he overcame political heavyweights, including Jean Chrétien and four other cabinet ministers, in a real contest for the party’s future. Yet despite his credentials and broad support within the party, Canadians still rejected him.

And unlike Turner, Carney’s leadership victory raises serious legitimacy concerns. Liberal leadership races allow votes from permanent residents (non-citizens) and minors aged 14 to 17—groups that have no say in a general election. Even more troubling, of the 400,000 votes cast, only 147,000 were verified. Carney received 126,000 of those votes, but nearly two-thirds of ballots were rejected. Had those votes gone to any of his opponents, Carney’s win would have been far from certain.

A Rebel News petition calling for Elections Canada, CSIS, and the RCMP to audit the leadership vote is already circulating. While skepticism over the process is reasonable, it’s doubtful that meaningful answers will emerge.

Beyond legitimacy issues, Carney shares another unfortunate trait with a failed Liberal leader: Michael Ignatieff.

Ignatieff followed Stéphane Dion, whose push for a carbon tax proved deeply unpopular. The Conservatives quickly branded Ignatieff, a long-time Harvard professor, as an elitist disconnected from ordinary Canadians. Their “He didn’t come back for you” attack ads stuck, and Ignatieff led the Liberals to a historic defeat, falling to third-party status.

Carney faces the same vulnerability. After years in England, he will struggle to shake the image of an out-of-touch globalist. His French, weaker than Ignatieff’s, will also hurt him in Quebec, a province that abandoned the Liberals in 2011 in favour of the NDP.

History suggests Carney’s leadership will pave the way for another Conservative majority government—just as Turner and Ignatieff’s failures did.

Carney’s leadership campaign combines the worst aspects of 1984 and 2011. As an unelected, elitist ex-pat with weak French, he carries a Liberal banner weighed down by both Trudeau’s baggage and the deeply unpopular carbon tax.

A Conservative government with a mandate for reform is increasingly likely. A slimmed-down civil service, reduced regulations, the abolition of the carbon tax, and renewed pipeline construction could all be on the horizon. After nearly a decade of Liberal rule, Canada’s political pendulum seems set to swing back once again.

Lee Harding is Research Fellow for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By David Leis

Decades of underfunding and political neglect have left our military weak and unprepared

What Lt.-Gen (retired) Michel Maisonneuve (ret.) told me about Canada’s military was nothing short of alarming. He didn’t mince words—our armed forces are in dire straits. If we don’t act now, Canada will not only be unable to defend itself, but it will cease to be taken seriously by our allies, many of whom are already losing patience with our military decline.

Maisonneuve has seen firsthand what a functioning military looks like. He has served at the highest levels, working alongside our allies in NATO, and he knows exactly what Canada is failing to do. “We are no longer at the table when major defence decisions are made,” he told me. “The Americans don’t ask us what we think anymore because they know we can’t contribute.” That is a stunning indictment of where we now stand—a country that was once respected for its ability to punch above its weight militarily has been reduced to an afterthought.

The problem, as Maisonneuve laid out, is both simple and staggering: Canada doesn’t take its defence seriously anymore. The government has allowed our forces to wither. The Air Force is still buying CF-18s from the 1980s because the long-delayed F-35 procurement is years behind schedule. The Navy, once a competent maritime force, is barely functional, with no operational submarines and a fleet that is nowhere near what is needed to patrol our vast coastlines.

Meanwhile, the Army is struggling to recruit and retain soldiers, leaving its numbers dangerously low. “We have an Army in name only,” Maisonneuve said. “If we were called upon tomorrow to deploy a fully operational combat force, we couldn’t do it.”

Even more shocking is the state of readiness of our troops. A recent report found that 75 per cent of Canadian military personnel are overweight. Maisonneuve didn’t sugarcoat it:

“It’s unacceptable. We are supposed to be training warriors, not watching fitness standards collapse.” When the people entrusted with defending our country are struggling with basic physical fitness, it speaks to something much deeper—an institutional rot that has infected the entire system. Our allies have noticed. Canada was locked out of AUKUS, the military alliance between the U.S., the U.K. and Australia. “It wasn’t an oversight,” Maisonneuve explained. “It was a deliberate snub. The Americans don’t see us as a serious defence partner anymore.” That snub should have been a wake-up call. Instead, our government shrugged it off.

Meanwhile, Washington is openly questioning Canada’s value in NATO. The Americans see the numbers—Canada refuses to meet even the minimum defence spending requirement of two per cent of GDP. Instead of fulfilling our obligations, we offer up empty promises and expect others to pick up the slack.

Maisonneuve is blunt about what needs to be done. “First, we need to fully fund the military—and that means not just hitting the NATO target but exceeding it. Our allies spend real money on their defence because they understand that security is not optional.” He suggests Canada should aim for at least 2.5 per cent of GDP, not just as a show of commitment but as a necessity to rebuild our capabilities. Beyond money, Maisonneuve argues that military culture must be restored.

“We’ve allowed ideology to creep into the ranks. The military’s primary function is to defend the nation, not to serve as a social experiment,” he said. “We need to get back to training warriors, not worrying about whether we’re ticking the right diversity boxes.” He believes a return to a warrior ethos is essential— without it, the military will remain directionless.

Procurement is another disaster that Maisonneuve insists must be fixed immediately. “We’ve spent years dithering on replacing equipment, and every delay puts us further behind,” he said. The F-35 deal should have been signed years ago, but political hesitation means we won’t see a full fleet for years. The Navy urgently needs new submarines and icebreakers, especially to secure the Arctic, where other global powers, particularly Russia, are ramping up their presence.

The biggest issue, though, is manpower. “We need to rebuild the forces, period,” Maisonneuve told me. “That means recruiting, training, and retaining soldiers, and we are failing at all three.” He even suggested that Canada should consider implementing a national service requirement, a move that would not only increase troop numbers but also instill a sense of duty and responsibility in younger generations. “We used to be a country that took security seriously,” he said. “What happened?”

That’s the question, isn’t it? What happened to Canada? How did we go from being a country that contributed meaningfully to global security to one that can’t even defend itself? The reality is that successive governments have let this happen—first by neglecting funding, then by letting bureaucracy suffocate procurement, and finally by allowing the core purpose of the military to be diluted.

Maisonneuve is clear: Canada must act now, or it will cease to be taken seriously.

David Leis is President and CEO of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and host of the Leaders on the Frontier podcast