Connect with us

National

Justin Trudeau Resigns as Prime Minister

Published

15 minute read

The Opposition with Dan Knight

Amid scandals, internal dissent, and economic mismanagement, Trudeau steps down after nearly a decade in power, triggering a leadership race and questions about his legacy

Justin Trudeau has finally called it quits, but let’s not pretend it was on his terms. After nearly a decade of virtue-signaling, reckless spending, and scandals so frequent they could be a Netflix series, Trudeau announced his resignation in a press conference dripping with self-pity and self-praise. But let’s cut through the melodrama: Trudeau isn’t resigning out of some noble desire to “reset” Canadian politics. He’s running for the hills, leaving behind a Liberal Party in chaos, a country divided, and a fiscal crisis that would make any economist break into a cold sweat.

To make his exit smoother—and less humiliating—Trudeau has cooked up one final trick to save his party from immediate disaster. He’s proroguing Parliament until March 24th, giving the Liberals time to select a new leader while avoiding a vote of no confidence that every opposition leader is salivating over. The Conservatives, NDP, and Bloc are all chomping at the bit to hold Trudeau’s government accountable for its incompetence, scandals, and economic mismanagement. And who can blame them? The Liberal government has been teetering on the edge of collapse for months, paralyzed not by opposition obstruction, as Trudeau claims, but by its own refusal to release critical documents on multiple corruption scandals. Trudeau’s prorogation stunt isn’t about giving Canada a “fresh start”—it’s about running out the clock to save his party from political obliteration.

According to Trudeau, he’s stepping down because Parliament has been “paralyzed” by polarization. That’s rich. The truth is, Parliament hasn’t been paralyzed by some abstract cultural divide. It’s been paralyzed by Trudeau’s government refusing to release critical documents about scandal after scandal. Whether it’s the “Green Slush Fund,” where taxpayer dollars were funneled to companies tied to Liberal insiders, or the endless dodging around the Auditor General’s damning reports, Trudeau’s government has been allergic to accountability. Opposition parties haven’t obstructed Parliament—they’ve been doing their job, demanding transparency. But Trudeau, ever the master deflector, wants you to believe it’s all just partisan bickering.

And let’s not forget the real catalyst for this resignation: Chrystia Freeland’s departure. Trudeau would have you think they parted on amicable terms, with him heaping praise on her as a “political partner.” The reality? Freeland’s resignation letter all but called him out for fiscal irresponsibility. She didn’t leave because of some grand philosophical difference with Trudeau. She bailed because she was left holding the bag for his government’s staggering $64 billion overspending scandal.

Freeland, as Finance Minister, was supposed to break the bad news to Canadians, delivering the grim truth about how the Trudeau government had torched billions on pet projects, virtue-signaling initiatives, and bloated programs under the guise of “building back better.” But when she got wind that Mark Carney—the darling of the globalist elite—was being tapped as her eventual replacement, her calculus shifted. Why should she be Trudeau’s scapegoat, taking the fall for his disastrous economic management, when she could jump ship and salvage her political reputation?

So, she bolted, leaving Trudeau scrambling to spin her departure as amicable, even noble. The truth is far less flattering. Freeland wasn’t some hero standing up to Trudeau’s fiscal insanity; she was an opportunist who saw the writing on the wall and decided to save herself. Her timing says it all. Trudeau was ready to throw her under the bus, make her the face of his government’s economic collapse, and Freeland, ever the political survivor, wasn’t about to go down with the ship.

In the end, Trudeau and Freeland are two sides of the same coin. One ran Canada’s economy into the ground while insisting it was all for the greater good, and the other bailed the moment she saw an opportunity to escape the consequences. Trudeau’s resignation and Freeland’s exit don’t mark the end of an era—they mark the unraveling of a failed administration that has left Canada worse off than it was a decade ago.

But it doesn’t end there because Justin Trudeau’s resignation wasn’t just an end to his tenure—it was a ghost story. Lurking in the background of his carefully choreographed farewell was the unmistakable shadow of Stephen Harper, the former Conservative Prime Minister Trudeau loved to blame for just about everything. Even as he stepped down, Trudeau couldn’t resist invoking the specter of his political nemesis, indirectly justifying his decision to prorogue Parliament by comparing it to Harper’s 2008 decision to do the same.

Trudeau attempted to spin his prorogation as necessary, claiming Parliament had been paralyzed by obstruction and filibustering. But anyone paying attention knows that Trudeau’s move was about avoiding immediate accountability. Facing confidence votes in a chaotic minority government, with scandals piling up and his party splintering, Trudeau needed an out. And who better to use as cover than Harper, the so-called architect of prorogation?

But here’s the irony Trudeau can’t escape: while he used to condemn Harper’s leadership style as cynical and divisive, his own legacy isn’t much different. Harper prorogued Parliament to avoid a confidence vote he was likely to lose, a move that Trudeau’s Liberals once decried as undemocratic. Yet here we are, with Trudeau proroguing Parliament not to “reset” anything, but to buy his party time to regroup while avoiding a vote that could collapse his government.

Trudeau’s comparisons to Harper don’t stop there. Harper governed during a time of economic challenge and left behind a reputation for fiscal conservatism. Trudeau, on the other hand, presided over the largest spending spree in Canadian history, resulting in ballooning deficits and rising inflation. But as Trudeau exits, what’s striking isn’t how different he is from Harper—it’s how much he’s been defined by him. Harper’s economic competence looms large over Trudeau’s fiscal recklessness. The ghost of Harper isn’t just haunting Trudeau’s resignation—it’s casting a long shadow over his legacy.

Even in his final moments as Prime Minister, Trudeau’s insecurities about Harper were on full display. By proroguing Parliament and framing his exit as a principled move to “cool tensions,” Trudeau essentially admitted he couldn’t handle the same parliamentary pressures Harper navigated with ease. In the end, Trudeau wasn’t escaping Harper’s legacy; he was living in it. His inability to outrun that ghost may be one of the most revealing aspects of his resignation.

The sad part here folks is that Trudeau’s press conference wasn’t just self-serving—it was a masterpiece of revisionist history. He bragged about reducing poverty and helping families, but here’s what he left out: food bank visits in Canada hit over 2 million in March 2024, a 90% increase since 2019. Housing costs are through the roof, inflation is crushing families, and his beloved carbon tax has made basic necessities even more expensive. Sure, he’ll point to child poverty stats that improved thanks to government handouts, but the broader picture shows a nation where economic insecurity is the new normal. That’s not a success story—it’s a disaster.

And then there was the inevitable swipe at Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative leader who’s been eating Trudeau’s lunch on the political stage. Trudeau called Poilievre’s vision “wrongheaded” and accused him of wanting to abandon climate change initiatives and attack journalists. Translation: Poilievre has been relentless in exposing Trudeau’s failures, and Trudeau doesn’t like it. Canadians don’t care about your climate summits and woke talking points, Justin—they care about being able to afford groceries and pay their rent. That’s why Poilievre is surging, and why Trudeau is getting out before he faces electoral humiliation.

Of course, Trudeau tried to paint his departure as some grand act of self-awareness. He claimed, “If I’m having to fight internal battles, I cannot be the best option in the next election.” How noble! Except those “internal battles” are the direct result of his own arrogance and incompetence. His party is in shambles, his government is mired in scandal, and he knows he can’t beat Poilievre. This isn’t a gracious exit—it’s a calculated retreat.

So what’s next for Canada? Justin Trudeau’s resignation sets the stage for a Liberal leadership race that will be as chaotic and cynical as his entire tenure. Whoever steps up will inherit not just a fractured party, but a country battered by division, corruption, and fiscal mismanagement. The swamp Trudeau cultivated—the elites, insiders, and bureaucrats who thrived under his reckless governance—will scramble to maintain control, ensuring their grip on power even as Canadians demand real change. But this time, the people might not be so easily fooled.

Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives are ready to step in with a message that cuts through the noise: affordability, accountability, and putting Canadians first. They’re tapping into the frustration of a country that’s tired of being lectured by a Prime Minister who spent more time virtue-signaling on the world stage than solving the real issues facing Canadians at home. Families struggling to pay for groceries, veterans waiting for basic services, and Indigenous communities still boiling water don’t want more of the same—they want a government that works for them. Trudeau saw the writing on the wall, and he ran.

Justin Trudeau leaves office cloaked in the same smug self-congratulation that defined his years in power. He’ll undoubtedly retreat to cozy speaking circuits and elite gatherings, spinning his tenure as a tale of progress and leadership. But Canadians won’t forget. They won’t forget the skyrocketing cost of living, the erosion of free speech, the scandals swept under the rug, or the divide-and-conquer tactics he used to cling to power. Trudeau governed not for the people, but for the swamp—a cadre of insiders, globalists, and bureaucratic elites who put their interests above those of ordinary Canadians.

This resignation isn’t a reset—it’s a retreat. Trudeau knows the Liberals can’t win under his leadership, so he’s abandoning ship, leaving the mess for someone else to clean up. But the Canadian people are waking up. They see through the empty promises and self-serving platitudes. They’re ready to drain the swamp and restore a government that respects their values, their freedom, and their future.

Trudeau’s resignation isn’t the end of a chapter; it’s the start of a fight. The fight to reclaim Canada from the grasp of a corrupt and unaccountable elite. The fight to put the interests of hardworking Canadians ahead of the woke agenda. The fight to restore pride, prosperity, and unity in a country that deserves so much better than the mess Justin Trudeau is leaving behind. Canada is ready for real leadership. And the swamp should be very, very afraid.

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

Business

Government has inherent bias for more government

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Jason Clemens and Jake Fuss

One of the authors of this op-ed resides in a municipality, which recently launched an online survey to gauge the preferences of residents with respect to its upcoming budget, which is laudable, but the questions illustrate a problem within government: a bias for more government.

The City of Coquitlam in British Columbia asked respondents whether it should increase, decrease or simply maintain the same level of spending in 2025 for policing, recreation, water and sewage, infrastructure and others items. The problem: there wasn’t a single question on whether residents prefer tax reductions.

Moreover, there was no discussion or context about how increased spending for these activities must come from taxpayers in the form of either having more taxpayers (city population increases) and/or higher tax rates for those residing in the city. What’s clear from the survey is that the municipal government prefers to spend more.

And this bias towards more government within government is not restricted to this local municipality. Other municipalities, provincial governments and certainly the Trudeau federal government have favoured more spending.

Under Prime Minister Trudeau federal spending has reached never-before-seen levels, even after adjusting for inflation. Consider, for instance, that per-person federal spending (excluding interest costs) will reach $11,901 this fiscal year (inflation-adjusted), well above previous levels of per-person spending including during the 2008-09 financial crisis and both world wars. The rationale is that Ottawa is delivering services demanded by Canadians.

But is that true? Are Canadians demanding national pharmacare, national dental benefits and a national daycare program? The answer depends on whether the costs of those programs are included in the discussion.

2022 poll asked Canadians about their support for all three programs. Support ranged from 69 per cent for national daycare, to 72 per cent for dental care, to 79 per cent for pharmacare. Here’s the problem, though. The questions were asked without respondents considering any costs. In other words, the respondents were asked whether they support these programs assuming they don’t affect their taxes.

But of course, taxpayers must pay for government spending, and when those costs are included, Canadians are much less supportive. In the same poll, when increased spending is linked with an increase in the GST, support plummets to 36 per cent for daycare, 40 per cent for pharmacare and 42 per cent for dental care.

And these results are not unique. A 2020 poll by the Angus Reid Institute found 86 per cent support for a national prescription drug program—but that support drops by almost half (47 per cent) if a one-percentage point increase in the middle-class personal income tax rate is included.

One explanation for the dramatic change in support rests in another poll, which found that 74 per cent of respondents felt the average Canadian family was overtaxed.

So it’s convenient for governments to avoid connecting more spending with higher taxes.

This internal government support for more government also shows up in our tax mix. Canadian governments rely on less visible taxes than our counterparts in the OECD, a group of high-income, developed countries. For instance, Canadian governments collect 6.8 per cent of the economy (GDP) in consumption taxes such as the GST, which are quite visible and transparent because the cost shows up directly on your bill. That ranks Canada 31st of 38 OECD countries and well below the OECD average of 10.0 per cent.

Alternatively, we rely on personal income tax revenues to a much greater degree and, because these taxes are automatically deducted from the paycheques of Canadians, they are much less apparent to workers. Canada collects 12.3 per cent of the economy in personal income taxes, ranking us 6th highest for our reliance on personal income taxes and above the OECD average of 8.3 per cent.

And a complying media aids the push for more government spending. According to a recent study, when reporting on the announcement of three new federal programs (pharmacare, dental care and national daycare) the CBC and CTV only included the cost of these programs in 4 per cent of their television news coverage. Most of the coverage related to the nature of the new programs, their potential impact on Canadians, and the responses from the Conservative, NDP and Bloc Quebecois. Simply put, the main television coverage didn’t query the government on the cost of these new programs and how taxpayers would pay the bill, leaving many viewers with the mistaken impression that the programs are costless.

Indeed, it’s interesting to note that the same study found that 99.4 per cent of press releases issued by the federal government related to these three programs excluded any information on their costs or impact on the budget.

The inherent bias within government for more government is increasingly clear, and supported by a lack of skepticism in the media. Canadians need clearer information from government on the potential benefits and costs of new or expanded spending, and the media must do a better job of critically covering government initiatives. Only then can we realistically understand what Canadians actually demand from government.

Jason Clemens

Executive Vice President, Fraser Institute

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Business

Why should Liberal MPs defend the carbon tax now?

Published on

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s carbon tax should be tucked under his arm while he doesn’t let the door hit them on the way out.

And Liberal caucus members need to make sure that happens.

Those in doubt need to ask themselves two questions.

Practically, why should Canadians keep paying the carbon tax for another few months before the next election?

Politically, why should government MPs keep paying a price with voters because of the carbon tax?

The carbon tax can be slayed on Wednesday during the Liberal party’s emergency caucus meeting.

Caucus finally rose up and finally forced the prime minister to face the reality that he can’t get re-elected.

But that’s only half of the job.

The problem isn’t just one person. It’s the policies. And Trudeau’s trademark carbon tax is one of his biggest failures. Replacing the PM while keeping the carbon tax is like switching the blackjack dealer while still facing a stacked deck.

And the Liberal caucus knows this.

Those Liberal MPs have been yelled at by their constituents about the carbon tax for years.

Hardworking people have been telling these MPs they can’t afford the carbon tax and it’s unfair to be punished for driving to work, heating their homes and buying food.

Those MPs have seen their constituents’ heating bills, the costs of their commutes and the invoices for their businesses.

They know the carbon tax adds about $13 to the cost of filling a minivan and about $20 extra to fill a pickup. They know the carbon tax is costing long haul truckers about $2 billion this year and they know it will cost farmers $1 billion in the next five years.

They know Canada misses its emissions targets, even with the carbon tax.

And here’s the big one: these MPs know the carbon tax is getting hiked on April 1.

The timeline has to be terrifying for Liberals seeking re-election.

March 24, the House of Commons reconvenes.

The government presents its Throne speech and immediately starts facing confidence votes with all opposition parties promising to vote against the government.

Then, on April 1, the government raises the carbon tax again.

Imagine door knocking after losing a confidence vote and raising the carbon tax.

Imagine being an MP from southern Ontario and a greenhouse tomato grower walks into your office with a chart showing his carbon tax costs.

Imagine trying to tell that farmer that he “gets more back” than he pays in the carbon tax.

Picture being an MP from Halifax and telling your constituents they need to buy an electric heat pump as their sole source of winter warmth before the carbon tax slaps them again.

Nova Scotia has charming weather events such as ice fog which seeps into a house like a ghost from a Dickens novel. So, most Maritime folks still need a furnace and Trudeau’s carbon tax punishes them.

These MPs have all been hollered at by their constituents who have been wounded by the carbon tax.

No matter how much the MPs may have pleaded with Trudeau behind closed doors, he kept the carbon tax and forced his MPs to defend it.

Trudeau tied this millstone to the necks of his MPs and didn’t care how much it ground them down.

But he’s leaving now.

And these Liberal MPs have the opportunity to cut the rope and free themselves from Trudeau’s carbon tax.

The Liberal caucus is holding an emergency meeting on Parliament Hill on Wednesday, and those members of Parliament need to demand an end to carbon tax then and there.

Why should they force Canadians to keep muttering profanities when they fill up their cars or pay the carbon tax charges on their heating bills?

Why should Liberal MPs face day after day of berating phone calls from constituents who don’t buy PMO talking points about the carbon tax?

The least they can do is spare Canadians the cost of the carbon tax right now and try to do the right thing in the end.

On Wednesday, Liberal MPs have to demand an end to the carbon tax.

Continue Reading

Trending

X