As Donald Trump realizes his political resurrection in the seat of the restless empire to our south, here, in the still-sovereign Land of the North, a brave – perhaps foolhardy – group of politicians seeks the far less lofty role of federal Liberal leader.
That role will bring with it the office of Prime Minister, which is no small prize. At this moment, though, it looks likely to be a short-lived prize.
The two leading candidates are an economist with no previous political experience, who moved from the world of private sector finance to central banking, and a journalist-turned-politician, who became Justin Trudeau’s minister-of-everything.
They are Mark Carney and Chrystia Freeland. Both have officially declared.
Carney did so in Edmonton, where he once lived, and where he could point to his early formative years, 1,300 kilometres to the north, in Fort Smith, Northwest Territories.
The point of it all was to portray the banker and denizen of the corridors of economic power as a just-folks kind of guy, not a gilded elitist.
Freeland did her launch at a boys and girls club in her downtown Toronto riding. It took her a fair bit of time to get going because she had to parry what seemed to be an endless series of interruptions from a carefully orchestrated pro-Palestinian protest.
She handled the disruptions well, which seemed to give her energy for a speech that focused almost entirely on standing up for Canada and, if necessary, taking the fight to Donald Trump.
On balance, Freeland had the better launch. She exceeded expectations. Her speaking style was less breathy and awkward than usual, and she credibly argued she is the right leader at this perilous juncture in Canada’s history.
Carney seemed dry and distant. His presentation did not make up in original policy ideas for what it lacked in inspiring rhetoric. His fans must be disappointed. But they can reassure themselves that it was only Day One.
Four other candidates are in the race, among them two sitting back-bench MPs and a former Liberal MP.
The most serious of the four Is Karina Gould, who has held a number of key cabinet posts in the Trudeau government. Her most recent job was House Leader, a challenging role in a minority parliament, especially the current fractious parliament. (She resigned from that job in order to run.)
Gould, who is 37, aims to be this race’s John Turner.
In 1968, at the convention which selected Pierre Trudeau as Liberal leader (and Prime Minister), Turner, who was then 38, ran as the voice of youth. He did quite well, all things considered. In due course, sixteen years later, he became Liberal leader – and, for a couple of months, Prime Minister.
Gould released a campaign launch video where, walking toward the camera Rick-Mercer-style, she said Canada is “poutine and beavertail after playing outside and helping your neighbour shovel their driveway after a snow-storm”, followed by a few other patriotic platitudes.
Like Carney, she will have to hope she gets a second chance to make a first impression. She’ll need it.
Who is best to take on Trump?
Whoever wins this foreshortened race, it will be a victory much mitigated by the current political climate. Still, recent events give the Liberals some cause for hope.
Until Donald Trump started talking about 25 per cent tariffs and annexing Canada, it looked like the Liberals were way, way back on the back foot, and likely to stay there. All the momentum, if we can trust opinion polls, was in favour of the Conservatives.
For more than a year, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre has been feasting on the widespread economic malaise engendered by the post-pandemic inflation that has plagued much of the globe.
Poilievre talks a lot about the suffering of ordinary Canadians, who cannot afford decent housing and face frightening costs at the grocery store. He might not offer much in the way of meaningful solutions, but, like Donald Trump, seems to have convinced a lot of folks he is on their side.
The Conservatives’ main economic policy proposal is a negative one – axe the tax, meaning the carbon tax.
If any of the leading leadership candidates take over in March that slogan will lose most of its sting. All have indicated they will beat Poilievre to the punch and cut the carbon tax, at least as it applies to consumers. They would maintain the tax-on-pollution for industry.
Be that as it may, the Liberals are now convinced the next campaign will not be about taxes or inflation. Nor will it be about the Liberal government’s overly “woke” agenda.
The coming election, they argue, will be all about the existential crisis posed by the new Emperor in Washington.
READ MORE: Trump wastes no time to target Canada
Carney says he has the smarts, the economic savvy, and the international experience to effectively deal with the U.S.’s bully-in-chief.
Freeland counters that she has real-life experience in the arena, going mano-à-mano with the one-time real-estate-developer who now aspires to world domination. She adds that she was so effective in that role last time Trump now loathes her.
Gould says, simply, she has youth on her side.
Poilievre is caught between Smith and Ford
Liberal leadership aspirants all agree on one point: Pierre Poilievre is not the right leader for Canada at this fraught moment. As Freeland puts it, Poilievre has trouble pushing back “against people he admires.”
To make matters worse for the federal Conservative leader, the two leading Conservatives on the provincial scene are at loggerheads as to what to do about Trump.
Ontario’s Doug Ford wants to play hardball with the U.S. if Trump goes ahead with his tariff threats. He wears a cap saying “Canada is not for sale” and advocates cutting off energy exports to the U.S. if necessary.
It is a view most provincial premiers appear to share, even Quebec’s François Legault. Quebec is a major electricity exporter to the north eastern U.S.
But Alberta’s Danielle Smith is definitely not onside with that approach. If the federal government tries to put export levies on her province’s oil and gas shipments to the U.S., Smith promises, in her words, “a national unity crisis”.
To add insult to injury, Smith travelled to Mar-a-Lago Florida to meet Trump, in a bended-knee exercise brokered by Trump’s Canada-whisperer, self-proclaimed billionaire and television personality Kevin O’Leary.
As well, Smith has made public her plans to attend the new president’s inauguration in Washington.
So far, Poilievre has evaded questions on the whole notion of using energy as a bargaining chip. The Liberal leadership aspirants will keep trying to corner him on that issue.
The bottom line is that the Liberals are getting their leadership process underway with a re-invigorated sense of purpose.
New Democrats struggle to get their voice heard
And where does that leave the party which has for many decades seen itself as the most authentic progressive and pro-Canadian voice on the scene, the New Democratic Party?
It looks like NDPers will have to bide their time while the Liberals settle their leadership hash and while Canadians as a whole absorb the cost of whatever Trump throws our way.
New Democratic leader Jagmeet Singh suggested restricting or taxing exports to the U.S. of critical minerals, which are essential to the manufacture of high-tech devices. Only fellow New Democrat, B.C. Premier David Eby jumped on that bandwagon.
The relative lack of interest in what their party has to contribute must be frustrating for Singh and company, given that in many recent polls the NDP is level pegging with the Liberals (with both way behind the Conservatives).
But Singh and his party have no choice but to, as my late father-in-law used to say, keep punching.
Late last week, Singh did a bit of outreach of his own to the U.S. He had a video chat with Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. Singh asked Sanders his views on Trump’s threatened tariffs.
According to an NDP news release, Sanders said Trump’s “main motive is to pay for massive tax cuts for billionaires and corporations, not to protect the interests of working and middle-class people, who are already struggling to make ends meet.”
The only avowed socialist in the U.S. senate could have been the Democratic nominee in 2016. Sanders won some key primaries against Hillary Clinton, notably the vote in swing-state Michigan.
But the Democratic establishment pulled out all the stops to hold him at bay. Today, he remains popular in blue collar U.S., and maintains a large following among U.S. youth.
He would not be a negligible ally in a dog fight with Donald Trump.
Maybe some of the Liberals will follow Jagmeet Singh and reach out to Bernie Sanders and his progressive allies in the U.S. House of Representatives. They could do worse.
Support rabble today!
We’re so glad you stopped by! Thanks for consuming rabble content this year.
rabble.ca is 100% reader and donor funded, so as an avid reader of our content, we hope you will consider gifting rabble with a donation during our summer fundraiser today.
Whether it be a one-time donation or a small monthly contribution, your support is critical to keep rabble writers producing the work you’ve come to rely on as a part of a healthy media diet.
Become a rabble rouser — donate to rabble.ca today.
Nick Seebruch, editor
