I’ll never refer to the Jean Chretien and Paul Martin Liberals as perfect, but they were tolerable and likable in some areas, and at the very least, Canadians didn’t have to worry about having their BANK ACCOUNTS frozen if they disagreed with policies coming from their Prime Minister.
The Trudeau Legacy and the Liberal Party’s Decline
It should now be clear to most Canadians—especially Liberal supporters—that Justin Trudeau’s cabinet may go down as one of the most ineffective and damaging in the country’s history.
While former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney is often cited as one of the worst leaders, it’s important to remember that he inherited a struggling economy—one shaped by the fiscal missteps of Pierre Trudeau. Pierre Trudeau exited politics just before the full consequences of his policies were felt, leaving Mulroney to manage the fallout.
Mulroney’s key failure was attempting to pay for Pierre Trudeau’s economic legacy through increased taxes and regulatory expansion—policies that ultimately hurt the private sector. In contrast, I have a level of respect for the Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin era of the Liberal Party. They were willing to implement real austerity measures when needed—something that requires courage and conviction.
Fiscal discipline shown by Chrétien, Martin and later Mark Carney
In fact, it’s arguably because of the fiscal discipline shown by Chrétien, Martin, and even Mark Carney during his early years at the Bank of Canada, that Pierre Trudeau’s legacy wasn’t fully exposed as the long-term economic liability it was. Notably, Mark Carney showed caution when it came to lowering interest rates during his time as Governor—suggesting a preference for financial prudence.
That said, I still consider Stephen Poloz to be the most disappointing Governor of the Bank of Canada in modern history, and Chrystia Freeland to be the weakest finance minister the country has ever seen. While their heritage as Ukrainian-Canadians is irrelevant to their qualifications, it’s worth acknowledging that certain economic mindsets rooted in Eastern European ideologies—whether socialist or interventionist—can sometimes produce short-sighted fiscal decisions.
The public’s curiosity about Mark Carney entering politics—particularly replacing Chrystia Freeland—is understandable. Many Canadians would likely welcome the shift. But the real issue is whether Carney would be able to operate independently under Trudeau’s leadership.
The Trudeau cabinet has shown little tolerance for fiscal conservatism or moral responsibility in governance. If Carney were to maintain his integrity and push back on Trudeau’s policies, their partnership would likely be short-lived. If he doesn’t push back, he risks becoming just another figurehead in a dysfunctional political machine.
Chrystia Freeland’s CRINGE public persona
Chrystia Freeland’s public persona gives the impression of someone who has memorized economic vocabulary but doesn’t fully grasp its implications. Her policies have often appeared disconnected from real-world consequences. Trudeau, meanwhile, has demonstrated an equal lack of financial understanding. Together, they exist in an ideological echo chamber, often blaming external forces—or even the Canadian people—for their failed policies.
If Mark Carney were introduced into this dynamic, one of two things would likely happen:
- He tries to inject common sense and is sidelined, as Trudeau pivots the conversation—possibly with grandstanding about climate change or vague moral imperatives.
- He gives up, showing up merely for the paycheck, as many assume others in Trudeau’s cabinet already do.
If Carney genuinely believes in fiscal balance and economic realism, he may find the environment under Trudeau’s leadership intolerable. The bigger question is how long he could survive before Trudeau—true to form—changes the narrative to dodge responsibility.
A typical deflection might sound something like:
“We’re in the fight of our lives against climate change, and we won’t pursue austerity while the planet is burning.”
To which anyone grounded in financial reality—Carney included—would likely respond with frustration, realizing that logic and numbers no longer shape Canada’s policy direction.