A few leaders, one country, and a lot of promises. Name the one that lies the most to Canadians? Vote now and keep track of our live updates!
{{ pctA }}% of paid votes say {{ sayA }} lies more.
{{ pctB }}% of paid votes say {{ sayB }} lies more.
{{ pctC }}% of paid votes say {{ sayC }} lies more.
{{ pctD }}% of paid votes say {{ sayD }} lies more.
{{ pctE }}% of paid votes say {{ sayE }} lies more.
Each vote costs 99¢ and joins the results once payment is confirmed. The chart shows what paying voters think in real time. Opt in at checkout and we'll email you the results with the actual vote counts!
This is for entertainment, not a scientific measure of honesty. Who Lies More?
We found no peer-reviewed or official research that ranks the current leaders of Canada's federal parties by how often they lie, and this page does not claim that any of them lies. Researchers study something narrower: how political claims get checked, and how people judge a claim depending on who made it.
Fact-checkers rate the statements they choose to check. When Chloe Lim compared two major US fact-checkers in a 2018 study in Research & Politics, only one in 10 statements had been checked by both. On the claims both had checked, they agreed fairly well about outright falsehoods and obvious truths, and much less often about statements rated in between, such as "half true". A count of one politician's ratings depends partly on which statements were picked and how clear-cut they were.
Fact-checks do move beliefs, within limits. A meta-analysis in Political Communication (2020) pooled 30 studies with 20,963 participants and found that fact-checking had a positive overall effect on political beliefs, while its power to correct misinformation was substantially weakened by people's existing beliefs, ideology and knowledge.
Who made the claim matters as well. In five studies published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (2023), Jeff Galak and Clayton Critcher found that Republicans and Democrats alike judged media-reported falsehoods by their own party's politicians as more acceptable than the other party's, most of all falsehoods meant to advance the party's policy agenda. That research was done in the United States. In Canada, a 2023 study in the Canadian Journal of Political Science used three decades of survey data on how people feel about the parties and found that affective polarization is real here too, though ideas developed for US politics have to be adapted to Canada's multiparty system.
None of these studies says whether any Canadian leader is honest, and this page does not measure anyone's honesty either. It is a paid poll for entertainment: every vote costs 99¢, only paid votes count, and the chart shows how paying voters split.
Sources checked October 2026.
None of the sources we checked answers that reliably, and the same goes for naming the most honest one. Fact-checkers rate selected statements, so their tallies are not a complete record, and the research above shows that people judge a claim partly by who made it. The chart on this page shows only which leader paying voters picked, not a finding about any of them.
Only some false statements are against the law. In federal elections, section 91 of the Canada Elections Act bars anyone, during an election period and with the intention of affecting the results, from making or publishing a false statement that a candidate, a party leader or a public figure associated with a party has committed, been charged with or is under investigation for an offence, or a false statement about their citizenship, place of birth, education, professional qualifications or membership in a group or association. Doing it knowingly is an offence under section 486. Since June 2026, section 482.01 also makes it an offence to make or publish a statement known to be false or misleading about voting, candidacy, vote counting or election results, with the intention of affecting the results or disrupting an election. Claims about policy, promises or statistics are not covered by either section, and the advertising code run by the industry body Ad Standards excludes political and election advertising. This is a plain summary, not legal advice.
The House deals with it under its own rules rather than in the courts. Members have freedom of speech in parliamentary proceedings, so a member who feels defamed by words spoken on the floor of the House cannot take that to court, as House of Commons Procedure and Practice explains. The same guide says remarks that question a member's integrity, honesty or character are not in order, so a member who calls another a liar can be asked to withdraw the word. Complaints that a minister or member deliberately misled the House have been raised as questions of privilege, but the test is strict: the statement was misleading, the member knew it was incorrect when they made it, and they meant to mislead.
Research suggests people judge a false claim partly by who made it. In the 2023 studies above, partisans were readier to dismiss reports of their own side's falsehoods as fake news, or to assume those falsehoods were unintentional, and even allowing for that they rated their own side's falsehoods as more acceptable. Falsehoods that pushed a party's policy goals also signalled that the politician could be trusted by their own side, and not by the other. Those studies were of American partisans and do not measure Canada.
Its measure is confidence, and the federal Parliament scores lowest of the five institutions in its quality of life indicator. In the Canadian Social Survey, 28.3% of respondents rated their confidence in the federal Parliament 4 or 5 out of 5 at the end of 2024, compared with 63.4% for the police, 48.2% for the justice system and courts, 45.0% for the school system and 36.2% for the Canadian media. Confidence in an institution is a different question from whether any one politician tells the truth.
Most respondents in Statistics Canada's 2025 survey said they came across information online that they suspected was false. In results released in May 2026, 80% said they saw online news or information they suspected was misleading, false or inaccurate at least once a month, 61% were very or extremely concerned about online misinformation, and 47% found it harder to tell true from false news or information than three years earlier. Those figures cover all online information, political or not.
No. WhoLiesMore is a paid opinion poll for entertainment. It is not a survey or an election, voters choose to take part, and it does not measure anyone's honesty. The chart shows only how paying voters split.
Because only paid votes count. A vote joins the chart once the payment is confirmed, so the split shows what people were willing to pay to say. A vote costs 0.99 in US, Canadian or Australian dollars, pounds or euros, depending on where you connect from, and each vote counts once.
We appreciate your vote. Pick how many votes, then how you want to pay.
Card via Stripe (it asks for your email and billing address) or crypto via NOWPayments. You pay in a secure window on this page, and we never see or store your payment details.
Card, Apple Pay, Google Pay or crypto. Pay {{ totalSaid }} on our processor and your vote for {{ chosen }} posts the second it clears.