What new leadership should look like for Failing Liberals

Patrick Gossage • December 27, 2024

Most Ottawa watchers have thrown up their arms in disgust with the all too obvious leadership mismanagement in the appalling chaos of the last few days: the dismissal of one of Canada’s most respected Ministers and deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland

over basic disagreement over economic policy, then her resignation. The shameless offer of the Finance post to Mark Carney – obviously turned down. Then her very damaging resignation letter the day she was supposed to unveil her economic update. And an invisible Prime Minister now considering his future with his caucus support imploding. His future is now the issue, as parliament adjourns with the government’s future in severe jeopardy.

This unprecedented weakness in the Trudeau minority government, and the base and angry polarized political discourse, makes one wonder what kind of Canada we have become, and what do we have a government for? It clearly has not served our economy or its anxiety ridden citizens, or given them hope or confidence for many months. We also face the nastiest election ever in Canadian history with apparently deep divisions about the kind of nation we should have. And a severe threat to a divided weakened nation from the incoming President. This without a clear path to change and renewal of the Liberal party, and a disliked and feckless opposition leader showing few signs of strength to seize important national and international policies.


For the first time there are signs that Trudeau may make way for a leadership change. There are strong contenders, not the last, Freedland herself, who will run again and has shown a taste for the big job. It’s predictable that Carney has no desire to join what seems to be the failing party. And given the wide public distaste for the Liberals, it would take a major new powerful leader to reverse its fortunes. Perhaps the Trudeau pal, the very politically sage Dominic LeBlanc.


What might a totally renewed Liberal leadership look like? One thing is certain. Canadians need a new and robust belief in the country. Pride in Canada dropped from a high of 78 per cent in 1984 to just 34 per cent this year, according to a recent Angus Reid poll. Little surprise, given that Trudeau once said that Canada had no national identity, and played to the country’s particularisms. This lack of belief in one’s country is particularly evident among young people. And much is due to the inability of the government to speak to their needs and concerns. It is the

young who celebrate our evident sports and music accomplishments, not our leaders.


Is there a politician capable of reigniting national pride and confidence? One might also ask if Trudeau decided to stay, if he has the rhetorical chops to reinspire Canadians? Unlikely, but something he may be considering. In any case, it’s a tall order, but perhaps the only way the country could be lifted to trust that a new and strong nation could be rebuilt; that there is a politician who puts the nation, not himself, or herself, first. I really believe we are tired of being told our country is broken, and that we have to keep apologizing for past errors and have little in our past to be proud of. The world outside is indeed a fearful one, and some of our most cherished values are being questioned in many countries. Trump’s insanities contrast with our relative stability, and respect for law and order and the caring society we have built. The Canadian spirit is cautious, observant and critical, where the American is assertive. One reason is that many are turned off by the constant negativity of Poiliviere. We celebrate and value diversity and welcome immigrants. Reducing their numbers does not reduce the value we put on our multicultural society. And however difficult it becomes, we are committed to reducing the number of assault weapons that produce such regular horror south of the border.


We may be more politically divided than ever, in a partisan sense, but if someone can rally us to the values we share and show us that Canada’s most valued institutions like universal health care can be improved, he or she will be listened to. Trudeau might look at the lines at the bottom of the his father’s Charter document for inspiration: “We must now establish the basic principles, the basic values and beliefs which hold us together as Canadians so that beyond our regional loyalties there is a way of life and a system of values which make us proud of the country that has given us such freedom and such immeasurable joy.” This is a worthwhile strategy for some leader to consider. There are positive signs. Our indigenous people, especially their leaders and creators, are being appreciated and heard as never before. And this should be celebrated. We are acutely aware of racial issues and working hard so that the egalitarianism promised by the Charter is evident in all our dealings with each other. This all sounds like some sort of dream of a latter-day Canadian Roosevelt, I know. But surely anyone who wants to lead this country must be fundamentally committed to its core values that unify us all, and commit to new ways of institutionalizing them. Hope springs eternal, and out of the recent chaos new leadership and a strong new Canada might just emerge.

Patrick Gossage Insider Political Views

Well-meaning Assault Weapons Ban and Buyback victim of poor timing and major opposition

By Patrick Gossage • April 14, 2026
In contrast to US inaction after almost weekly mass killings, it took one horrible shooting rampage at the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal, in 1980, to start the drive for public policy changes around gun control. But years delays between the mass shooting outrage and actual policy to rid the country of assault rifles doomed the eventual gun buyback program. The polytechnique horror was huge news in our relatively massacre-free nation. That December day, 25-year-old Marc Lépine stalked the hallways and classrooms of the École Polytechnique de Montréal with a semi-automatic rifle and murdered 14 women and injured another 13 people before killing himself. A year later, the Coalition for Gun Control was formed to push for stricter gun laws, led by survivors of the Montreal massacre. Later that year, the federal government passed Bill C-17, which imposed safety training and a mandatory waiting period to get a firearms licence-- not an effective means of controlling automatic rifles. Much later, in1996, Parliament passed the Firearms Act, Bill C-68, driven in part by a push for stricter gun laws following the Montreal massacre. The act created a national firearms registry and imposed new rules for obtaining a gun licence, including background checks. The former Conservative government, under prime minister Stephen Harper, abolished the long-gun registry, which it said placed an unnecessary burden on law-abiding gun owners. Quebec subsequently created its own provincial registry to replace it. It took another horrific killing nine years later in Nova Scotia to force Ottawa to take real action on miliary-style guns. On April 18 and 19, 2020, 51-year-old Gabriel Wortman committed multiple shootings and set fires at 16 locations, killing 22 people before he was killed by the RCMP. On May 1, 2020, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, following through on a 2019 campaign promise, announced an immediate ban on some 1,500 makes and models of assault weapons.. The Canadian government sought to follow New Zealand's lead when at the same time it announced the ban it promised a plan to force gun owners to surrender military-style firearms. But while New Zealand acted quickly, in 2019, Ottawa only launched a long awaited buyback program in 2026. In contrast, the government of then New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda announced its firearms buyback program shortly after a white supremacist killed 51 people at two mosques in Christchurch in March, 2019. In order to move quickly, New Zealand set up mobile units where firearm owners could get refunds in exchange for their firearms. They worked hard to get co-operation from gun owners. Meanwhile, here, the firearms industry and individual gun owners vigorously opposed the project, and it was delayed for years. The program was finally initiated this year with little of the sense of urgency it could have had right after the Nova Scotia killings. It has not been going well. In April, the federal public safety minister's office said more than 67,000 assault-style firearms have been declared by 37,869 firearm owners across Canada. That's just under half of the 136,000 firearms the government had budgeted for when it set aside aside $248.6 million for the program. The precise number of banned firearms in Canada is unknown due to the end of the long-gun registry in 2012. There are other deeper problems. Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba have indicated they will not assist with the program, meaning police are not co-operating as in New Zealand. Conservative MPs and firearm owners say the buyback is a wasteful exercise that targets law-abiding citizens. The original gun-control advocacy group, PolySeSouvient, blames “weak political leadership” for what it calls “poor participation” in the compensation program. It looks like Ottawa - to put it mildly - has blown the opportunity to really reduce the number of people-killing guns in this country.

Two Opposites – Mark Carney and Donald Trump

By Patrick Gossage • March 12, 2026
One of the major differences between these two men is that Carney understands the value of well-thought-out strategy, abundantly clear in his Davos speech, which laid out one for middle powers to deal with the end of a rules-based international order and the rise of hegemony. Trump's lack of strategic understanding is clear in his bumbling attempts to justify the billion-dollar-a-day Iran war. His overall tactic of “flooding the zone” – mounting a new initiative or major announcement every day, or even several times a day to ensure press and opposition can never catch up. This tactic has served him well – confusing the world and his would-be opponents into submission under a valley of activity and harsh opinions from the leader of the world. Contrast this approach to leadership from Carney. He is systematically building a nation less dependent on US trade by travelling the world building new alliances and trading partners. And in the scare of Australia giving substance to his idea of alliances with middle powers. All laid out in the Davos speech. It is instructive to appreciate how much Trump was irritated by the Davos speech. Carney got a standing ovation; Trump’s rambling lengthy diatribe did not. He won’t soon forget being so upstaged. He surely recognized an intellectual power he could never match. Carney is a realist and pragmatic when he stated recently “We take the world as it is, not as we wish it to be.” He is dealing with the world that is being reshaped by an irrational power-mad president, a world the powerful Stephen Miller said “that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world.” Does Carney sometimes err on the side of supporting Trump likely to ensure that critical talks on free trade and tariffs have some chance of finding a sympathetic ear? Yes; first he seemed to fully support Trump’s war with Iran. He later made his support more nuanced, saying Trump’s actions were against the rules-based international order. He now says we will not get involved unless a NATO ally is threatened. But generally, Carney is highly rational in contrast to Trump’s self-centered irrationality. Take Trump’s bizarre ill-informed letter to the Prime Minister of Norway, who had no role in deciding if he got the Nobel Peace Prize: “I no longer feel obligated to think purely of Peace (he subsequently engaged in an ever expanding war against Iran). He then reiterated his demand for “complete and Total Control, of Greenland. Thank you!”. His late-night rants, complete with caps, on social media show a mind out of control. Thay are dutifully reported on US news media and often astonish with their non sequiturs and nastiness. One of his more unpresidential quotes came as he fingered White House drapes: “I chose these myself. I always liked gold." The big question for Canadians who are more and more disillusioned with the antics of the President: could these two opposite ever sit down and do a deal that works for Canada. The two do text, and Carney has admitted that in private Trump does listen. But there is also evidence that the trade people in the White House do not like Canada, and as Trump has said, we owe our very existence to the US. And we are “difficult”. They have said that the current trade deal is not good for the US and could be trashed entirely and -deals with Mexico and Canada could be separate and the current trilateral deal may be dead.  Canada was at the brink of reducing the heavy sectoral tariffs on steel, aluminum, and lumber when Premier Ford’s unfortunate ads during the Rose Bowl that featured President Reagan speaking against the usefulness of Tariffs led To Trump suspending talks. They only recently resumed. So can our world-renowned businessman and banker hope to sit down with the unpredictable and unstable President and cut a deal? Some hope that if we extend talks, the President, weakened by the midterms, the bad economic fallout from an unpopular war, and the fragmentation of the MAGA movement may be easier to deal with. On the other hand he may badly need a “win,” bullying big concessions out of Canada and reaping so-cabled benefits from a weaker free trade deal. There is a scenario where Trump gets a black eye if Carney simply walks away with the conviction, perhaps easily shared with an increasingly nationalistic and confident Canada that “no deal is better than a bad deal.” In any case, what a decisive and challenging future we face with Canada at play. Can Carney win for Canada against his opposite by losing a deal?"
More Posts