National
Trudeau’s Last Stand, Resignation Rumors Swirl as Liberals Face Political Oblivion
With Polls in Free Fall and a Caucus Revolt Brewing, Analyst believe the Liberals will Bet on Identity Politics to Distract Canadians From Nine Years of Failure
If you haven’t already, crank up Whitesnake’s Here I Go Again, because the Liberal Party is hitting all the same notes in their spectacular fall from grace. Rumors are swirling that today Justin Trudeau, the king of platitudes and bad policies, might finally call it quits after nine long years of setting Canada on fire and calling it progress.
So, why is Trudeau on the verge of resignation? Because he’s facing a caucus revolt. Apparently, some of these MPs weren’t thrilled they didn’t get picked for the very last liberal cabinet shuffle, (or maybe it has to do with the latest Anguis Reid polls) which is funny considering they’ve had years to boot this guy. Instead, they’ve spent their time smiling for photo ops and pretending the country isn’t spiraling into chaos. Now, with the next election practically on the doorstep—2025, people—they’re panicking. And it’s glorious to watch.
Let’s set the stage: the latest Angus Reid poll is catastrophic for the Liberals. They’re sitting at 16%—that’s not just bad, that’s “we’re going to lose half our seats” bad. For context, the NDP is at 21%, which is embarrassing enough, but the Conservatives are at 45%. These are Harper-era numbers, folks. Pierre Poilievre isn’t just winning; he’s running victory laps before the race has even started.
So, what are the Liberals going to do? Well, they have three options. Spoiler alert: they’re all terrible.
Option 1: Prorogue Parliament and Hold a Leadership Race
So here’s the Liberals’ desperate move: prorogue Parliament, delay governing, and launch a leadership race to distract Canadians from their failures. It’s a political circus waiting to happen. Every ambitious Liberal—Freeland, Carney, Champagne—will throw their hat in the ring, and none of them are ready to clean up Trudeau’s mess.
But here’s the kicker: the clock is ticking. The fiscal year ends March 31, and without passing Interim Supply, the government literally shuts down. A leadership race takes months, leaving the party paralyzed while Pierre Poilievre dominates the narrative.
A new leader won’t fix anything; they’ll just inherit a sinking ship and take the blame for the inevitable electoral disaster. This isn’t a solution—it’s a slow, painful march toward oblivion while Canadians demand real leadership.
Option 2: Force a Leader Down Our Throats
Here’s where it gets spicy. The Liberals could skip the drama and appoint a new leader outright—someone like Chrystia Freeland. This would be their Kamala Harris moment. They’d toss Trudeau overboard, slap Freeland on the podium, and scream from the rooftops, “Canada’s First Female Prime Minister!” The media would eat it up. They’d call it historic, groundbreaking, revolutionary.
But here’s the first roadblock: Trudeau doesn’t have to go anywhere unless he decides to. That’s right, folks—there’s no magical “kick him out” button in the Liberal Party rulebook. Even if half his caucus is banging down his office door with pitchforks, Trudeau can just sit back, flash his trademark grin, and say, “I’m still your guy.” It’s less of a democratic process and more of a monarchy with better PR.
Now, let’s assume Trudeau does step down because, let’s face it, his ego might be the only thing keeping him there. Enter Chrystia Freeland. The Liberals would roll her out as the savior of their sinking ship.
But here’s the problem: Freeland’s record is awful. She’s been Trudeau’s loyal sidekick for years, backing every bad policy this government has pushed. From the $65 billion budget blowout to fraudulent COVID loans to the carbon tax disaster, Freeland has her fingerprints all over this mess. She’s not a fresh start; she’s Trudeau 2.0, but with less charisma.
And let’s be real, the Liberals wouldn’t run on their record because their record is a disaster. Instead, they’ll double down on identity politics. Freeland will be the face of the campaign, and the talking points will be predictable: “Conservatives hate women. Conservatives will ban abortion. Conservatives are scary.” It’s the same broken record we’ve heard a million times before. It didn’t work in the U.S., and it’s not going to work here. Canadians are smarter than that.
Option 3: Let Trudeau Go Down with the Ship
Now, this might actually be the smartest move. Trudeau built this disaster. He deserves to be the face of the loss. Let him captain the ship straight into the abyss, take the hit in the next election, and then rebuild from the ashes. It’s not pretty, but it’s probably the cleanest way to salvage the Liberal brand long-term.
But we all know the Liberals won’t do this. They’re too arrogant, too desperate, and too addicted to their own spin. Instead, they’ll probably shove Freeland into the spotlight either through a leadership race or just by bypassing the vote and just giving her the reigns and let her ride the Titanic into electoral oblivion, and then act surprised when it all goes horribly wrong.
Trudeau’s Titanic, Freeland’s Fantasy, and the Liberal Pipe Dream
So, here’s what I expect to happen, and honestly? Good riddance to Trudeau. Nine years of turning this country into a woke, bloated, over-taxed shell of what it used to be—his time is up. But let’s be real, the Liberals’ ship hit the iceberg years ago. Now they’re panicking because it’s finally sinking, and they’re trying to figure out who’s going to be the face of the wreckage. Spoiler alert: none of their options are good.
Here’s their play: they’re going to pull the Kamala Harris switcheroo. Replace Trudeau with Chrystia Freeland, slap a big, shiny label on her as Canada’s “First Female Prime Minister,” and hope nobody notices she was the co-pilot of this crash. Freeland has been positioning herself for this moment for years. She’s stood right next to Trudeau, smiling, nodding, and championing the very policies that have made Canadians poorer, angrier, and ready to vote Conservative in record numbers.
But here’s what they don’t want you to know—and here’s what they won’t campaign on: the Liberal record. Why? Because it’s abysmal. Corruption? Check. They handed out COVID loans like Halloween candy, with billions lost to fraud. Deficits? Oh, just a casual $65 billion for 2024. Inflation? A raging fire that’s destroying Canadians’ savings and quality of life. Authoritarian measures? Let’s not forget freezing bank accounts during the Freedom Convoy protests. Big government? That’s not just their record; it’s their entire identity.
And with Freeland at the helm, that’s not going to change. What’s the plan? Double down on identity politics, of course. “Chrystia Freeland: Canada’s First Female Prime Minister.” That’ll be the headline. That’ll be the news cycle. And anyone who questions her? Sexist. Misogynist. Anti-woman. Oh, and here’s the cherry on top: they’ll pivot straight to abortion rights. Why? Because they think it’s the one play that still works. Ignore the economy. Ignore the housing crisis. Ignore the fact that Canadians are literally rationing food. Just scream, “The Conservatives hate women!” and hope it sticks.
If I were a Liberal strategist—and thank God I’m not—I’d tell them to shove Freeland down our throats now. Why? Because the leader of the Titanic isn’t making it out alive. Whoever takes over the Liberal Party right now is going down with the ship, no question about it. Freeland appeals to the Liberal base: the blue-haired Twitter warriors, the downtown elites, the latte liberals. That’s her crowd. But here’s the problem: that’s it. She’s not reaching the working-class Canadians who are sick of paying for Liberal failures. Hillary Clinton has more likability than Freeland, and that’s saying something.
So, yes, they’ll run her on abortion rights, paint the Conservatives as the boogeyman, and pretend Canadians don’t notice they’ve been absolutely terrible for nine years. But let’s be honest—this is a political kamikaze mission for Freeland. The election results in 2025 are going to be catastrophic for the Liberals. And once the dust settles, Freeland is finished. She’ll be the face of the defeat, the one who led the party into the abyss.
And that’s why the real Liberal leadership race starts after the election. Mark Carney, the former Bank of Canada governor, is waiting in the wings. He’s smart enough to know the Liberals need to burn to the ground first before they can rebuild. He’s the only one who can go toe-to-toe with Pierre Poilievre on fiscal policy. If the Liberals want to have a shot at relevance in 10 years, Carney’s their guy. Pair him with someone like Christy Clark as deputy liberal opposition leader, and maybe—maybe—they can reforge the Liberal brand.
But Trudeau? He should go down with the ship. He built this disaster. He’s the reason the Liberals are at 16% in the polls while the Conservatives are at 45%. Let him take the fall. Let the party burn, and let the next generation of upstarts fight over the ashes. Freeland can have her moment, her delusion that she can fix this, but she’s only walking into political oblivion.
So here’s my advice to the Liberals: pour the champagne, play the violin, and let Justin Trudeau captain his sinking ship. And hey, as the ship goes down, maybe Trudeau can declare himself a transgender woman to grab the first spot on the lifeboat—because nothing says progressive hero like skipping the line while the rest of the crew drowns in his mess.
Automotive
Canada’s EV gamble is starting to backfire
Things have only gone from bad to worse for the global Electric Vehicle industry. And that’s a problem for Canada, because successive Liberal governments have done everything in their power to hitch our cart to that horse.
Earlier this month, the Trump Administration rolled back more Biden-era regulations that effectively served as a back-door EV mandate in the United States. These rules mandated that all passenger cars be able to travel at least 65.1 miles (and for light trucks, 45.2 miles) per gallon of gasoline or diesel, by the year 2031. Since no Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicle could realistically conform to those standards, that would have essentially boxed them out of the market.
Trump’s rolling them back was a fulfillment of his campaign promise to end the Biden Administration’s stealth EV mandates. But it was also a simple recognition of the reality that EVs can’t compete on their own merits.
For proof of that, look no further than our second bit of bad news for EVs: Ford Motor Company has just announced a massive $19.5 billion write-down, almost entirely linked to its aggressive push into EVs. They’ve lost $13 billion on EVs in the past two years alone.
The company invested tens of billions on these go-carts, and lost their shirt when it turned out the market for them was miniscule.
Ford’s EV division president Andrew Frick explained, “Ford is following the customer. We are looking at the market as it is today, not just as everyone predicted it to be five years ago.”
Of course, five years ago, the market was assuming that government subsidies-plus-mandates would create a market for EVs at scale, which hasn’t happened.
As to what this portends for the market, the Wall Street Journal argued, “The company’s pivot from all-electric vehicles is a fresh sign that America’s roadways – after a push to remake them – will continue to look in the near future much like they do today, with a large number of gas-powered cars and trucks and growing use of hybrids.”
And that’s not just true in the U.S. Across the Atlantic, reports suggest the European Union is preparing to delay their own EV mandates to 2040. And the U.K.’s Labour government is considering postponing their own 2030 ICE vehicle ban to align with any EU change in policy.
It’s looking like fewer people around the world will be forced by their governments to buy EVs. Which means that fewer people will be buying EVs.
Now, that is a headache for Canada. Our leaders, at both the federal and provincial levels, have bet big on the success of EVs, investing billions in taxpayer dollars in the hopes of making Canada a major player in the global EV supply chain.
To bolster those investments, Ottawa introduced its Electric Vehicle mandate, requiring 100 per cent of new light-duty vehicle sales to be electric by 2035. This, despite the fact that EVs remain significantly more expensive than gas-and-diesel driven vehicles, they’re poorly suited to Canada’s vast distances and cold climate, and our charging infrastructure is wholly inadequate for a total transition to EVs.
But even if these things weren’t true, there still aren’t enough of us to make the government’s investment make sense. Their entire strategy depends on exporting to foreign markets that are rapidly cooling on EVs.
Collapsing demand south of the border – where the vast majority of the autos we build are sent – means that Canadian EVs will be left without buyers. And postponed (perhaps eventually canceled) mandates in Europe mean that we will be left without a fallback market.
Canadian industry voices are growing louder in their concern. Meanwhile, plants are already idling, scaling back production, or even closing, leaving workers out in the cold.
As GM Canada’s president, Kristian Aquilina, said when announcing her company’s cancellation of the BrightDrop Electric delivery van, “Quite simply, we just have not seen demand for these vehicles climb to the levels that we initially anticipated…. It’s simply a demand and a market-driven response.”
Prime Minister Mark Carney, while sharing much of the same environmental outlook as his predecessor, has already been compelled by economic realities to make a small adjustment – delaying the enforcement of the 2026 EV sales quotas by one year.
But a one-year pause doesn’t solve the problem. It kicks the can down the road.
Mr. Carney must now make a choice. He can double down on this troubled policy, continuing to throw good money after bad, endangering a lot of jobs in our automotive sector, while making transportation more expensive and less reliable for Canadians. Or he can change course: scrap the mandates, end the subsidies, and start putting people and prosperity ahead of ideology.
Here’s hoping he chooses the latter.
The writing is on the wall. Around the world, the forced transition to EVs is crashing into economic reality. If Canada doesn’t wake up soon, we’ll be left holding the bag.
Business
There’s No Bias at CBC News, You Say? Well, OK…
It’s been nearly a year since I last wrote about the CBC. In the intervening months, the Prescott memo on bias at the BBC was released, whose stunning allegations of systemic journalistic malpractice “inspired” multiple senior officials to leave the corporation. Given how the institutional bias driving problems at the BBC is undoubtedly widely shared by CBC employees, I’d be surprised if there weren’t similar flaws embedded inside the stuff we’re being fed here in Canada.
Apparently, besides receiving nearly two billion dollars¹ annually in direct and indirect government funding, CBC also employs around a third of all of Canada’s full time journalists. So taxpayers have a legitimate interest in knowing what we’re getting out of the deal.
Naturally, corporate president Marie-Philippe Bouchard has solemnly denied the existence of any bias in CBC reporting. But I’d be more comfortable seeing some evidence of that with my own eyes. Given that I personally can easily go multiple months without watching any CBC programming or even visiting their website, “my own eyes” will require some creative redefinition.
So this time around I collected the titles and descriptions from nearly 300 stories that were randomly chosen from the CBC Top Stories RSS feed from the first half of 2025. You can view the results for yourself here. I then used AI tools to analyze the data for possible bias (how events are interpreted) and agendas (which events are selected). I also looked for:
- Institutional viewpoint bias
- Public-sector framing
- Cultural-identity prioritization
- Government-source dependency
- Social-progressive emphasis
Here’s what I discovered.
Story Selection Bias
Millions of things happen every day. And many thousands of those might be of interest to Canadians. Naturally, no news publisher has the bandwidth to cover all of them, so deciding which stories to include in anyone’s Top Story feed will involve a lot of filtering. To give us a sense of what filtering standards are used at the CBC, let’s break down coverage by topic.
Of the 300 stories covered by my data, around 30 percent – month after month – focused on Donald Trump and U.S.- Canada relations. Another 12-15 percent related to Gaza and the Israel-Palestine conflict. Domestic politics – including election coverage – took up another 12 percent, Indigenous issues attracted 9 percent, climate and the environment grabbed 8 percent, and gender identity, health-care worker assaults, immigrant suffering, and crime attracted around 4 percent each.
Now here’s a partial list of significant stories from the target time frame (the first half of 2025) that weren’t meaningfully represented in my sample of CBC’s Top Stories:
- Housing affordability crisis barely appears (one of the top voter concerns in actual 2025 polls).
- Immigration levels and labour-market impact.
- Crime-rate increases or policing controversies (unless tied to Indigenous or racialized victims).
- Private-sector investment success stories.
- Any sustained positive coverage of the oil/gas sector (even when prices are high).
- Critical examination of public-sector growth or pension liabilities.
- Chinese interference or CCP influence in Canada (despite ongoing inquiries in real life).
- The rest of the known galaxy (besides Gaza and the U.S.)
Interpretation Bias
There’s an obvious pattern of favoring certain identity narratives. The Indigenous are always framed as victims of historic injustice, Palestinian and Gazan actions are overwhelmingly sympathetic, while anything done by Israelis is “aggression”. Transgender representation in uniformly affirmative while dissent is bigotry.
By contrast, stories critical of immigration policy, sympathetic to Israeli/Jewish perspectives, or skeptical of gender medicine are virtually non-existent in this sample.
That’s not to say that, in the real world, injustice doesn’t exist. It surely does. But a neutral and objective news service should be able to present important stories using a neutral and objective voice. That obviously doesn’t happen at the CBC.
Consider these obvious examples:
- “Trump claims there are only ‘2 genders.’ Historians say that’s never been true” – here’s an overt editorial contradiction in the headline itself.
- “Trump bans transgender female athletes from women’s sports” which is framed as an attack rather than a policy debate.
And your choice of wording counts more than you might realize. Verbs like “slams”, “blasts”, and “warns” are used almost exclusively describing the actions of conservative figures like Trump, Poilievre, or Danielle Smith, while “experts say”, “historians say”, and “doctors say” are repeatedly used to rebut conservative policy.
Similarly, Palestinian casualties are invariably “killed“ by Israeli forces – using the active voice – while Israeli casualties, when mentioned at all, are described using the passive voice.
Institutional Viewpoint Bias
A primary – perhaps the primary job – of a serious journalist is to challenge the government’s narrative. Because if journalists don’t even try to hold public officials to account, then no one else can. Even the valuable work of the Auditor General or the Parliamentary Budget Officer will be wasted, because there will be no one to amplify their claims of wrongdoing. And Canadians will have no way of hearing the bad news.
So it can’t be a good sign when around 62 percent of domestic political stories published by the nation’s public broadcaster either quote government (federal or provincial) sources as the primary voice, or are framed around government announcements, reports, funding promises, or inquiries.
In other words, a majority of what the CBC does involves providing stenography services for their paymasters.
Here are just a few examples:
- “Federal government apologizes for ‘profound harm’ of Dundas Harbour relocations”
- “Jordan’s Principle funding… being extended through 2026: Indigenous Services”
- “Liberal government announces dental care expansion the day before expected election call”
Agencies like the Bank of Canada, Indigenous Services Canada, and Transportation Safety Board are routinely presented as authoritative and neutral. By contrast, opposition or industry critiques are usually presented as secondary (“…but critics say”) or are simply invisible. Overall, private-sector actors like airlines, oil companies, or developers are far more likely to be criticized.
All this is classic institutional bias: the state and its agencies are the default lens through which reality is filtered.
Not unlike the horrors going on at the BBC, much of this bias is likely unconscious. I’m sure that presenting this evidence to CBC editors and managers would evoke little more than blank stares. This stuff flies way below the radar.
But as one of the AI tools I used concluded:
In short, this 2025 CBC RSS sample shows a very strong and consistent left-progressive institutional bias both in story selection (agenda) and in framing (interpretation). The outlet functions less as a neutral public broadcaster and more as an amplifier of government, public-sector, and social-progressive narratives, with particular hostility reserved for Donald Trump, Canadian conservatives, and anything that could be construed as “right-wing misinformation.”
And here’s the bottom line from a second tool:
The data reveals a consistent editorial worldview where legitimate change flows from institutions downward, identity group membership is newsworthy, and systemic intervention is the default solution framework.
You might also enjoy:
Is Updating a Few Thousand Readers Worth a Half Million Taxpayer Dollars? |
||||||
|
||||||
| Plenty has been written about the many difficulties faced by legacy news media operations. You might even recall reading about the troubled CBC and the Liberal government’s ill-fated Online News Act in these very pages. Traditional subscription and broadcast models are drying up, and on-line ad-based revenues are in sharp decline. | ||||||
|
-
International1 day agoOttawa is still dodging the China interference threat
-
Business1 day agoThere’s No Bias at CBC News, You Say? Well, OK…
-
Automotive23 hours agoCanada’s EV gamble is starting to backfire
-
International1 day ago2025: The Year The Narrative Changed
-
Fraser Institute2 days agoCarney government sowing seeds for corruption in Ottawa
-
Daily Caller2 days agoWhile Western Nations Cling to Energy Transition, Pragmatic Nations Produce Energy and Wealth
-
Alberta1 day agoAlberta project would be “the biggest carbon capture and storage project in the world”
-
Alberta2 days agoAlberta Next Panel calls for less Ottawa—and it could pay off








