Connect with us

National

Trudeau’s Last Stand, Resignation Rumors Swirl as Liberals Face Political Oblivion

Published

14 minute read

The Opposition with Dan Knight

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.

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Brownstone Institute

The Doctor Will Kill You Now

Published on

From the Brownstone Institute

Clayton-J-BakerClayton J. Baker, MD 

Way back in the B.C. era (Before Covid), I taught Medical Humanities and Bioethics at an American medical school. One of my older colleagues – I’ll call him Dr. Quinlan – was a prominent member of the faculty and a nationally recognized proponent of physician-assisted suicide.

Dr. Quinlan was a very nice man. He was soft-spoken, friendly, and intelligent. He had originally become involved in the subject of physician-assisted suicide by accident, while trying to help a patient near the end of her life who was suffering terribly.

That particular clinical case, which Dr. Quinlan wrote up and published in a major medical journal, launched a second career of sorts for him, as he became a leading figure in the physician-assisted suicide movement. In fact, he was lead plaintiff in a challenge of New York’s then-prohibition against physician-assisted suicide.

The case eventually went all the way to the US Supreme Court, which added to his fame. As it happened, SCOTUS ruled 9-0 against him, definitively establishing that there is no “right to die” enshrined in the Constitution, and affirming that the state has a compelling interest to protect the vulnerable.

SCOTUS’s unanimous decision against Dr. Quinlan meant that his side had somehow pulled off the impressive feat of uniting Antonin Scalia, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and all points in between against their cause. (I never quite saw how that added to his luster, but such is the Academy.)

At any rate, I once had a conversation with Dr. Quinlan about physician-assisted suicide. I told him that I opposed it ever becoming legal. I recall he calmly, pleasantly asked me why I felt that way.

First, I acknowledged that his formative case must have been very tough, and allowed that maybe, just maybe, he had done right in that exceptionally difficult situation. But as the legal saying goes, hard cases make bad law.

Second, as a clinical physician, I felt strongly that no patient should ever see their doctor and have to wonder if he was coming to help keep them alive or to kill them.

Finally, perhaps most importantly, there’s this thing called the slippery slope.

As I recall, he replied that he couldn’t imagine the slippery slope becoming a problem in a matter so profound as causing a patient’s death.

Well, maybe not with you personally, Dr. Quinlan, I thought. I said no more.

But having done my residency at a major liver transplant center in Boston, I had had more than enough experience with the rather slapdash ethics of the organ transplantation world. The opaque shuffling of patients up and down the transplant list, the endless and rather macabre scrounging for donors, and the nebulous, vaguely sinister concept of brain death had all unsettled me.

Prior to residency, I had attended medical school in Canada. In those days, the McGill University Faculty of Medicine was still almost Victorian in its ways: an old-school, stiff-upper-lip, Workaholics-Anonymous-chapter-house sort of place. The ethic was hard work, personal accountability for mistakes, and above all primum non nocere – first, do no harm.

Fast forward to today’s soft-core totalitarian state of Canada, the land of debanking and convicting peaceful protesterspersecuting honest physicians for speaking obvious truth, fining people $25,000 for hiking on their own property, and spitefully seeking to slaughter harmless animals precisely because they may hold unique medical and scientific value.

To all those offenses against liberty, morality, and basic decency, we must add Canada’s aggressive policy of legalizing, and, in fact, encouraging industrial-scale physician-assisted suicide. Under Canada’s Medical Assistance In Dying (MAiD) program, which has been in place only since 2016, physician-assisted suicide now accounts for a terrifying 4.7 percent of all deaths in Canada.

MAiD will be permitted for patients suffering from mental illness in Canada in 2027, putting it on par with the Netherlands, Belgium, and Switzerland.

To its credit, and unlike the Netherlands and Belgium, Canada does not allow minors to access MAiD. Not yet.

However, patients scheduled to be terminated via MAiD in Canada are actively recruited to have their organs harvested. In fact, MAiD accounts for 6 percent of all deceased organ donors in Canada.

In summary, in Canada, in less than 10 years, physician-assisted suicide has gone from illegal to both an epidemic cause of death and a highly successful organ-harvesting source for the organ transplantation industry.

Physician-assisted suicide has not slid down the slippery slope in Canada. It has thrown itself off the face of El Capitan.

And now, at long last, physician-assisted suicide may be coming to New York. It has passed the House and Senate, and just awaits the Governor’s signature. It seems that the 9-0 Supreme Court shellacking back in the day was just a bump in the road. The long march through the institutions, indeed.

For a brief period in Western history, roughly from the introduction of antibiotics until Covid, hospitals ceased to be a place one entered fully expecting to die. It appears that era is coming to an end.

Covid demonstrated that Western allopathic medicine has a dark, sadistic, anti-human side – fueled by 20th-century scientism and 21st-century technocratic globalism – to which it is increasingly turning. Physician-assisted suicide is a growing part of this death cult transformation. It should be fought at every step.

I have not seen Dr. Quinlan in years. I do not know how he might feel about my slippery slope argument today.

I still believe I was correct.

Continue Reading

Digital ID

Toronto airport requests approval of ‘digital IDs’ for domestic airport travel

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

A few months ago, the Canadian government hired outside consultants who will be tasked with looking into whether or not officials should proceed with creating a digital ID system for all citizens and residents.

Pearson International Airport recently asked that Canada’s Secure Air Travel Regulations be amended to allow ‘digital ID to be recognized,’ paving the way for biometrics to be used.

Canadian airport officials asked the federal government to implement a digital ID for domestic travelers as an option in the name of “modernization.”

Currently, domestic travelers are only required to use physical identification for air travel, including a driver’s license, passport, or government-issued ID card.

However, Toronto’s Pearson International Airport recently recommended that Canada’s Secure Air Travel Regulations be amended to allow for “digital ID to be recognized.”

“To modernize and support enhanced passenger experience, we ask that the government endorse system-wide border and screening modernization including immediate regulatory changes,” Pearson representatives told Canada’s House of Commons finance committee in a recent submission.

Airport managers wrote that “Canada should proactively embrace both emerging and proven technologies that have the potential to enhance the passenger experience and improve operational efficiency and promote productivity across the sector.” 

“Key initiatives should include accelerating the adoption of a common digital ID for both domestic and international travel.”

The Canadian Airports Council also told Parliament that a national digital ID program should start with airport travelers, including the introduction of “biometrics.”

The Council asked to “enable digital ID and biometrics in air travel” to allow it to “enable more efficient use of space, reduce pressure on infrastructure and enhance security.”

“At present, Canada is behind our international peers in ensuring travel process security screening, Customs and border procedures and boarding are modern, efficient, simple and biometrically based,” it wrote.

To date, Parliamentary committees have shot down requests for a domestic national identification system.

Some nations, such as the United Kingdom, have recently said they will mandate digital ID using the pretext of illegal immigration as the catalyst.

As reported by LifeSiteNews a few months ago, the Canadian government hired outside consultants who will be tasked with looking into whether or not officials should proceed with creating a digital ID system for all citizens and residents.

Canada’s Privy Council research from 2023 noted that there is strong public resistance to the use of digital IDs to access government services.

Prime Minister Mark Carney has a history of backing central bank digital currencies and supported in 2023 “choking off the money” donated to the Freedom Convoy protests against COVID mandates.

As late as February, the Liberal government under former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s immigration ministry, as reported by LifeSiteNews, was secretly asking Canadians via surveys if they would accept a national identification program that would likely end up requiring each citizen to always have a type of “digital” passport on them.

While the Liberal government under Trudeau insisted the program would be optional, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre nonetheless sounded the alarm by promising to introduce a bill that would “expressly prohibit” digital IDs in Canada.

Digital IDs and similar systems have long been pushed by globalist groups like the World Economic Forum, an organization with which Carney has extensive ties, under the guise of ease of access and security.

Critics, however, have warned that the purpose of such a system is actually to centralize control over citizens. This opinion seems to be mirrored by the general public, with a Bank of Canada survey finding that Canadians are very wary of a government-backed digital currency, concluding that a “significant number” of citizens would resist the implementation of such a system.

Continue Reading

Trending

X