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

Net zero’s cost-benefit ratio is crazy high

Media / 4 hours ago

CBC retracts false claims about residential schools after accusing Rebel News of ‘misinformation’

Business / 4 hours ago

‘Great Reset’ champion Klaus Schwab resigns from WEF

Bjorn Lomborg

Net zero’s cost-benefit ratio is crazy high

Published on April 22, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Bjørn Lomborg

The best academic estimates show that over the century, policies to achieve net zero would cost every person on Earth the equivalent of more than CAD $4,000 every year. Of course, most people in poor countries cannot afford anywhere near this. If the cost falls solely on the rich world, the price-tag adds up to almost $30,000 (CAD) per person, per year, over the century.

Canada has made a legal commitment to achieve “net zero” carbon emissions by 2050. Back in 2015, then-Prime Minister Trudeau promised that climate action will “create jobs and economic growth” and the federal government insists it will create a “strong economy.” The truth is that the net zero policy generates vast costs and very little benefit—and Canada would be better off changing direction.

Achieving net zero carbon emissions is far more daunting than politicians have ever admitted. Canada is nowhere near on track. Annual Canadian CO₂ emissions have increased 20 per cent since 1990. In the time that Trudeau was prime minister, fossil fuel energy supply actually increased over 11 per cent. Similarly, the share of fossil fuels in Canada’s total energy supply (not just electricity) increased from 75 per cent in 2015 to 77 per cent in 2023.

Over the same period, the switch from coal to gas, and a tiny 0.4 percentage point increase in the energy from solar and wind, has reduced annual CO₂ emissions by less than three per cent. On that trend, getting to zero won’t take 25 years as the Liberal government promised, but more than 160 years. One study shows that the government’s current plan which won’t even reach net-zero will cost Canada a quarter of a million jobs, seven per cent lower GDP and wages on average $8,000 lower.

Globally, achieving net-zero will be even harder. Remember, Canada makes up about 1.5 per cent of global CO₂ emissions, and while Canada is already rich with plenty of energy, the world’s poor want much more energy.

In order to achieve global net-zero by 2050, by 2030 we would already need to achieve the equivalent of removing the combined emissions of China and the United States — every year. This is in the realm of science fiction.

The painful Covid lockdowns of 2020 only reduced global emissions by about six per cent. To achieve net zero, the UN points out that we would need to have doubled those reductions in 2021, tripled them in 2022, quadrupled them in 2023, and so on. This year they would need to be sextupled, and by 2030 increased 11-fold. So far, the world hasn’t even managed to start reducing global carbon emissions, which last year hit a new record.

Data from both the International Energy Agency and the US Energy Information Administration give added cause for skepticism. Both organizations foresee the world getting more energy from renewables: an increase from today’s 16 per cent to between one-quarter to one-third of all primary energy by 2050. But that is far from a transition. On an optimistically linear trend, this means we’re a century or two away from achieving 100 percent renewables.

Politicians like to blithely suggest the shift away from fossil fuels isn’t unprecedented, because in the past we transitioned from wood to coal, from coal to oil, and from oil to gas. The truth is, humanity hasn’t made a real energy transition even once. Coal didn’t replace wood but mostly added to global energy, just like oil and gas have added further additional energy. As in the past, solar and wind are now mostly adding to our global energy output, rather than replacing fossil fuels.

Indeed, it’s worth remembering that even after two centuries, humanity’s transition away from wood is not over. More than two billion mostly poor people still depend on wood for cooking and heating, and it still provides about 5 per cent of global energy.

Like Canada, the world remains fossil fuel-based, as it delivers more than four-fifths of energy. Over the last half century, our dependence has declined only slightly from 87 per cent to 82 per cent, but in absolute terms we have increased our fossil fuel use by more than 150 per cent. On the trajectory since 1971, we will reach zero fossil fuel use some nine centuries from now, and even the fastest period of recent decline from 2014 would see us taking over three centuries.

Global warming will create more problems than benefits, so achieving net-zero would see real benefits. Over the century, the average person would experience benefits worth $700 (CAD) each year.

But net zero policies will be much more expensive. The best academic estimates show that over the century, policies to achieve net zero would cost every person on Earth the equivalent of more than CAD $4,000 every year. Of course, most people in poor countries cannot afford anywhere near this. If the cost falls solely on the rich world, the price-tag adds up to almost $30,000 (CAD) per person, per year, over the century.

Every year over the 21st century, costs would vastly outweigh benefits, and global costs would exceed benefits by over CAD 32 trillion each year.

We would see much higher transport costs, higher electricity costs, higher heating and cooling costs and — as businesses would also have to pay for all this — drastic increases in the price of food and all other necessities. Just one example: net-zero targets would likely increase gas costs some two-to-four times even by 2030, costing consumers up to $US52.6 trillion. All that makes it a policy that just doesn’t make sense—for Canada and for the world.

Bjørn Lomborg

Media

CBC retracts false claims about residential schools after accusing Rebel News of ‘misinformation’

Published on April 22, 2025

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

CBC has issued a correction after falsely accused Rebel News of spreading misinformation while itself promoting the false claim that remains of Indigenous children were found in unmarked graves at residential schools.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) has issued a correction after blaming Rebel News of “misinformation” while spreading false information itself.

On April 17, CBC corrected a comment from chief political correspondent Rosemary Barton who accused Rebel News reporter Drea Humphrey of spreading “misinformation,” while repeating the false claim that bodies have been found in unmarked graves at Indigenous residential schools.

“Yes, there have been remains of Indigenous children found in various places across the country,” Barton falsely stated during a live broadcast following the French-language federal election leaders’ debate.

Her comment was in reference to New Democratic Leader (NDP) Jagmeet Singh refusing to answer a reporter’s question whether he would condemn the rash of church burnings and acts of vandalism across Canada.

“In this case you saw Mr. Singh, and this has been his position for some time, to refuse to answer questions,” Barton said during the live stream.

“Rebel News in particular traffics in misinformation, lack of facts, and as you heard in that question, which was woven with some truth and some things that weren’t true,” she claimed.

“Yes, there have been burnings of Christian, Catholic churches,” she admitted.

“Yes, there have been remains of Indigenous children found in various places around the country, which she misrepresented,” Barton falsely stated.

Despite mass excavations, there have still been no mass graves discovered at any residential schools across Canada, but politicians and media continue to promote the false narrative.

However, even in their correction statement, CBC failed to mention that, to date, no human remains have been discovered.

“As CBC News has reported on multiple occasions, what several Indigenous communities across Canada have discovered on the sites of some former residential schools are potential burial sites or unmarked graves,” the statement read.

However, CBC is now well known for pushing the false narrative that hundreds of children were buried and disregarded by Catholic priests and nuns who ran some of the schools. As a consequence of that false narrative, since 2021, over 100 churches have been burned or vandalized across Canada in seeming retribution.

Indeed, in addition to perpetuating the “mass graves” narrative, media and politicians have even threatened to punish those who oppose it. In October 2024, CBC ran a story which suggested that “residential school denialism” should be criminalized.