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

Land use will be British Columbia’s biggest issue in 2026

Published on

By Resource Works

Tariffs may fade. The collision between reconciliation, property rights, and investment will not.

British Columbia will talk about Donald Trump’s tariffs in 2026, and it will keep grinding through affordability. But the issue that will decide whether the province can build, invest, and govern is land use.

The warning signs were there in 2024. Land based industries still generate 12 per cent of B.C.’s GDP, and the province controls more than 90 per cent of the land base, and land policy was already being remade through opaque processes, including government to government tables. When rules for access to land feel unsettled, money flows slow into a trickle.

The Cowichan ruling sends shockwaves

In August 2025, the Cowichan ruling turned that unease into a live wire. The court recognized the Cowichan’s Aboriginal title over roughly 800 acres within Richmond, including lands held by governments and unnamed third parties. It found that grants of fee simple and other interests unjustifiably infringed that title, and declared certain Canada and Richmond titles and interests “defective and invalid,” with those invalidity declarations suspended for 18 months to give governments time to make arrangements.

The reaction has been split. Supporters see a reminder that constitutional rights do not evaporate because land changed hands. Critics see a precedent that leaves private owners exposed, especially because unnamed owners in the claim area were not parties to the case and did not receive formal notice. Even the idea of “coexistence” has become contentious, because both Aboriginal title and fee simple convey exclusive rights to decide land use and capture benefits.

Market chill sets in

McLTAikins translated the risk into advice that landowners and lenders can act on: registered ownership is not immune from constitutional scrutiny, and the land title system cannot cure a constitutional defect where Aboriginal title is established. Their explanation of fee simple reads less like theory than a due diligence checklist that now reaches beyond the registry.

By December, the market was answering. National Post columnist Adam Pankratz reported that an industrial landowner within the Cowichan title area lost a lender and a prospective tenant after a $35 million construction loan was pulled. He also described a separate Richmond hotel deal where a buyer withdrew after citing precedent risk, even though the hotel was not within the declared title lands. His case that uncertainty is already changing behaviour is laid out in Montrose.

Caroline Elliott captured how quickly court language moved into daily life after a City Richmond letter warned some owners that their title might be compromised. Whatever one thinks of that wording, it pushed land law out of the courtroom and into the mortgage conversation.

Mining and exploration stall

The same fault line runs through the critical minerals push. A new mineral claims regime now requires consultation before claims are approved, and critics argue it slows early stage exploration and forces prospectors to reveal targets before they can secure rights. Pankratz made that critique earlier, in his argument about mineral staking.

Resource Works, summarising AME feedback on Mineral Tenure Act modernisation, reported that 69.5 per cent of respondents lacked confidence in proposed changes, and that more than three quarters reported increased uncertainty about doing business in B.C. The theme is not anti consultation. It is that process, capacity, and timelines decide whether consultation produces partnership or paralysis.

Layered on top is the widening fight over UNDRIP implementation and DRIPA. Geoffrey Moyse, KC, called for repeal in a Northern Beat essay on DRIPA, arguing that Section 35 already provides the constitutional framework and that trying to operationalise UNDRIP invites litigation and uncertainty.

Tariffs and housing will still dominate headlines. But they are downstream of land. Until B.C. offers a stable bargain over who can do what, where, and on what foundation, every other promise will be hostage to the same uncertainty. For a province still built on land based wealth, Resource Works argues in its institutional history that the resource economy cannot be separated from land rules. In 2026, that is the main stage.

Resource Works News

Continue Reading

Energy

Why Japan wants Western Canadian LNG

Published on

From Resource Works

From Tokyo’s perspective, Canada offers speed, stability, and insulation from global energy shocks

In a Dec. 22, 2025 article, influential Japanese newspaper Asahi Shimbun laid out why Japan is placing growing strategic weight on liquefied natural gas exports from Western Canada – and why the start of full-scale operations at LNG Canada marks a significant shift in Japan’s energy-security calculus.

The article, written by staff writer Shiki Iwasawa, approaches Canadian LNG not as a climate story or an industrial milestone, but as a response to the vulnerabilities Japan has experienced since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine upended global gas markets.

1. Shorter distance and faster delivery

The most immediate advantage identified is geography. LNG shipped from British Columbia’s Pacific coast reaches Japan in about 10 days, roughly half the time required for cargoes originating in the Middle East or the U.S. Southeast, which can take 16 to 30 days.

For Japan – the world’s largest LNG importer – shorter voyages mean lower transportation costs, tighter inventory management, and reduced exposure to disruptions while cargoes are at sea.

2. Avoidance of global maritime choke points

Just as important, Canadian LNG avoids the world’s most precarious shipping bottlenecks.

The Asahi report emphasizes that shipments from B.C. do not pass through either:

  • the Strait of Hormuz, increasingly volatile amid Middle East conflict, or
  • the Panama Canal, where climate-driven water shortages have already led to passage restrictions.

Japanese officials explicitly frame these routes as strategic liabilities. As one senior government official responsible for energy security told the newspaper: “We, the government, have high hopes. It means a lot not having to go through the choke points.”

From Japan’s perspective, Canada’s Pacific-facing terminals offer a rare combination of proximity and route resilience.

3. Political reliability and allied status

The article contrasts Canada sharply with Russia, once a significant LNG supplier to Japan through the Sakhalin-2 project.

Before the Ukraine war, Russia accounted for about 10 per cent of Japan’s LNG imports. When Japan joined international sanctions, Moscow responded by restructuring the project’s ownership – a move that underscored how energy supplies can be weaponized.

A government source reflected on that experience bluntly: “We had thought it would be OK if we diversified procurement sources, but we were at risk of power outages even if only 10 percent (of LNG) didn’t reach Japan.”

Canada, by contrast, is described as a friendly and politically stable nation, free from sanctions risk and viewed as a long-term, rules-based partner.

4. Scale, certainty, and investment momentum

The Asahi article devotes considerable attention to the fundamentals of LNG Canada itself.

Key features highlighted include:

  • approximately $14 billion in total development costs,
  • 14 million tonnes per year of production capacity,
  • two liquefaction trains already operating,
  • natural gas sourced from inland Canada and transported via a 670-kilometre pipeline to the coast,
  • and the successful shipment of first cargoes in mid-2025.

Mitsubishi Corp., which holds a 15 per cent stake, has rights to market 2.1 million tonnes annually to Japan and other Asian buyers. Mitsubishi expects the project to generate tens of billions of yen in annual profits starting in the fiscal year beginning April 2026.

At a Nov. 4 news conference, Mitsubishi president Katsuya Nakanishi said the company is actively considering additional investment to expand capacity, with internal sources indicating output could eventually double.

5. LNG’s continuing role in Japan’s energy system

The article situates Canadian LNG within Japan’s broader energy strategy. Under Japan’s Economic Security Promotion Law, LNG is designated a “specified critical product.” The government maintains dedicated funds to secure supply during emergencies.

While nuclear power remains central to long-term planning, officials acknowledge LNG’s indispensable role. A senior economy ministry official told Asahi: “Nuclear power is the key player in the spotlight, but thermal power (mainly fueled by LNG) is the key player behind the scenes.”

Japan’s latest Basic Energy Plan projects LNG imports rising to 74 million tonnes by 2040, roughly 10 per cent higher than today, underscoring why secure, politically insulated suppliers matter.

What Japan’s view tells Canada

In a recent Canada-Japan leaders’ meeting on the sidelines of APEC, Prime Minister Mark Carney and Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi discussed expanding economic ties, with energy cooperation specifically highlighted around the LNG Canada project as a key element of their bilateral relationship. While Takaichi didn’t make a detailed public statement about Canadian LNG itself, the joint statement underscored Japan’s interest in stable and diversified LNG supplies—of which Canadian exports are a part of the broader Indo-Pacific energy security context.

What emerges from Asahi Shimbun’s reporting is a pragmatic assessment shaped by recent shocks. Japan values Canadian LNG because it is closer, less exposed to conflict-prone routes, backed by a stable political system, and already delivering cargoes at scale.

For Canadian readers, the message is unambiguous: Western Canadian LNG is not being embraced because of rhetoric or aspiration, but because it aligns with the operational, geopolitical, and economic priorities of one of the world’s most energy-dependent nations.

Continue Reading

Trending

X