As most Canadians settled in for a well-deserved holiday break, embracing the tranquility of the season, a different scene unfolded behind the scenes of the Liberal Party. While families gathered around festive tables, Liberal operatives past and present, under the guise of championing a Chrystia Freeland leadership bid, were engaged in a frenzied campaign of their own.
In the last two weeks, relentless phone calls echoed family dinners and vacations as party executives, members of Parliament, and influential Liberals were all quietly rallied in a concerted effort. The true intent of this mobilization? A not-so-covert tactical coup designed to unseat the prime minister and position Freeland as his successor. As Canadians looked forward to a season of peace, those in power were busy crafting their own narrative, one that will likely dramatically reshape the political landscape in the new year.
Caucus members and seasoned political veterans like Eddie Goldenberg have been vocally supporting Freeland’s ascension to the role of leader of the Liberal Party, and, subsequently, prime minister of Canada, arguing that this move represents the best path forward for Liberals. But while we respect their perspectives, as long-time Liberals who have been active in the party at every level and juncture, we disagree.
Freeland’s approach raises concerns about her true intentions and leadership style. As we consider the future of the Liberal Party, it is vital that we prioritize integrity and transparency in our leadership choices. In the swirling cauldron of Canadian politics, the recent narrative surrounding Freeland has painted her as some sort of martyr, a champion of fiscal responsibility forced to resign for her principles. But let’s be clear: Freeland is no martyr. She is not a victim of circumstance, nor is she engaged in a costly crusade for political virtue. The truth is far more nuanced—and far less laudable.
While her resignation caught many off guard, it is important to recognize that it was not a sudden commitment to fiscal discipline or responsible spending. Despite her resignation letter expressing disdain for “gimmicks,” Freeland has operated in recent years as if she had access to an unlimited government credit card. Her departure was triggered by an untenable situation within Justin Trudeau’s cabinet, exacerbated by damaging leaks that undermined the prime minister’s confidence in her as finance minister, with whispers of introducing the unelected Mark Carney as her potential replacement.
It is equally important to recognize why divisions grew between Freeland and Trudeau in the first place: her communication skills. The now famous “vibecession” and her suggestion to Canadians that cancelling their Disney+ subscription could help make ends meet made her a laughing stock in Canadian media. Freeland is as out of touch with average Canadians as Trudeau, if not more so. Her single act of rebellion cannot instantly turn her into Captain Canada as her many supporters wish.
What began as a strategically advantageous alliance for Freeland—a relationship she adeptly used to assert influence over her cabinet colleagues—has now deteriorated significantly. This shift not only raises questions about her capability and effectiveness but also highlights the instability that can arise from such political maneuvering. As we reflect on her tenure, it is crucial to consider the implications of her leadership style for the future of the Liberal Party and the country as a whole.
Concerns and questions have been pouring in from the party’s key players regarding how Freeland and her team envision this covert campaign as a viable path forward—and particularly how she can do this without engaging in the democratic leadership process mandated by the Liberal Party constitution. This approach not only undermines the principles of transparency and accountability but also risks deepening divisions within the party at a critical juncture. As we consider the future of the Liberal Party, we must prioritize a legitimate democratic process that reflects the values and voices of all party members.
Some interpretations of the Liberal Party constitution suggest that the Liberal caucus and the party executive can hold the power to appoint a leader in certain circumstances, while others argue that the timeframe required to organize a leadership convention and vote is simply too tight for a thorough process. Section 44(d)(i) of the Liberal constitution, referenced recently by Liberal Atlantic caucus chair Kody Blois, does not grant the party executive the power to supersede the leadership process, only to allow a caucus vote to select an interim leader. That interim leader, by precedent, would not be able to seek permanent leadership.
We must resist the urge to seek a quick fix by appointing someone more interested in the title than in the hard work and commitment that the role demands. Instead, we should focus on the strong candidates emerging for the leadership position—individuals such as former Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney, former B.C. premier Christy Clark, newly minted Finance Minister Dominic LeBlanc, and front bench ministers Anita Anand, François-Philippe Champagne, and Mélanie Joly. Each of these candidates brings unique experiences and perspectives that could enrich the political landscape and help us navigate the challenges ahead. Perhaps other candidates will emerge in such a contest that are not yet being considered by the media and punditry.
As the echoes of disillusionment grow louder, we can’t help but wonder how a party once steeped in the rich tradition of liberalism allowed itself to be so thoroughly hijacked, leaving us at a crossroads—between the remnants of what was and the uncertain promise of what could be.
Let us prioritize a competitive and transparent process that allows the best of our party to rise to the occasion. Engaging in this democratic exercise will not only strengthen our party’s foundations but also reaffirm our commitment to the values we espouse, ensuring that the next leader is someone who is prepared to tackle the pressing issues facing Canadians today.
Our party is not a cult. It is a vehicle for collective democratic ideals that should serve every Canadian. Let us not fall for the spectacle; we deserve a leader who prioritizes substance over superficiality, and who has a proven commitment to the people over personal ambition. If Freeland is that leader, she must prove it to Liberal members through a leadership contest, not a negotiated coup.
