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 Marco Navarro-Genie

When politicians misrepresent facts or historical events, whether out of ignorance or political expediency, they do a disservice to the truth and public trust. On Feb. 24, 2025, B.C. Conservative Party Leader John Rustad reportedly told Global News that “more than 4,000 children did not return home” from residential schools because “those children died in residential schools.” As researcher Nina Green points out, this statement is demonstrably false and contradicts the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s (TRC) final report.

Sadly, Rustad is not the only one making such claims. Similar statements, portrayed as facts, are repeated by politicians who should know better.

The truth, according to the TRC, is that 423 named children died on the premises of residential schools between 1867 and 2000. That is a tragedy, and we must expand our understanding of how and why these deaths occurred. To learn from tragedies, we must acknowledge and reflect on them. But to truly understand, we must accept what is true rather than bending or distorting it. Repeating the claim that “more than 4,000” children died in residential schools, as Rustad and others have uncritically reported, misrepresents reality.

The vastly inflated number, according to Green, originates from the University of Manitoba’s National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation (NCTR), which has misrepresented the data by including children who died after leaving school—in hospitals, in accidents at home, and even well into adulthood. This distortion has led to widespread misrepresentation, misleading policymakers and the public.

Why does this matter?

Canada’s history with Indigenous residential schools is deeply painful. Abuses, neglect and forced assimilation were real in many instances. However, distorting the facts about residential school deaths promotes a false narrative of genocide that does not serve justice—in fact, this false narrative undermines it. If reconciliation means anything, it must be built on truth, not contrived political narratives.

By repeating the claim that more than 4,000 children died at residential schools, Rustad is spreading falsehoods and stoking division. This figure has been used to justify claims of mass graves, leading to international headlines and widespread outrage that harm present generations of Indigenous people. Yet, nearly four years after the first claims of unmarked graves, no remains have been excavated or verified.

Rustad is not a private citizen—he is a public figure whose words carry weight. As such, he is responsible for ensuring that the information he disseminates is accurate. Rustad is failing in his duty to the public. Depending on his motivation, he contributes to a culture in which historical accuracy is sacrificed for political expediency.

Some may argue that the exact number of students who died at residential schools is not important. But truth is not negotiable. If we accept exaggerated claims in one instance, we set a dangerous pattern for historical distortions. The truth should not be ideological or political.

If Rustad is serious about Indigenous issues, he should demand transparency from the University of Manitoba and its NCTR. Instead of accepting misleading figures, he should call for the full release of the TRC records, as was promised in 2013.

Leaders like Rustad must be held accountable. Falsehoods, no matter how well-intentioned, do not advance reconciliation. They erode trust, divide Canadians, and ultimately undermine the cause they claim to support. All Canadians deserve much better.

Marco Navarro-Genie is the vice president of research at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. With Barry Cooper, he is coauthor of Canada’s COVID: The Story of a Pandemic Moral Panic (2023).