Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

2025 Federal Election

Election 2025: The Great Rebrand

Published

22 minute read

The Opposition with Dan Knight

Same Swamp, New Faces — A Banker, A Backup Dancer, and the Guy Who Called It All Along

So yesterday in Canada, something remarkable happened. The Liberals—yes, those Liberals—called a snap election, and if you’ve been even half-awake over the past decade, you already know what that means. When the Liberal Party in Canada says “emergency,” it never actually means “emergency.” It means opportunity. For them. And for them only.

Mark Carney, the freshly minted Prime Minister—and, let’s be honest, Justin Trudeau with a slightly different haircut—stood at a podium yesterday morning and announced to Canadians that they were in the middle of the “most significant crisis of our lifetimes.” Was he talking about inflation? Out-of-control immigration? Broken infrastructure? Nope. He was talking about Donald Trump. Again.

That’s right. According to Carney, who just last year was managing money for billionaires and holding court at Davos, Canada is on the verge of collapse because Donald Trump slapped tariffs on steel and aluminum. And so naturally, Carney’s solution wasn’t to meet with Trump, or negotiate, or push back through diplomacy—it was to dissolve Parliament and call an election. Because, he says, “President Trump claims that Canada isn’t a real country. He wants to break us so America can own us. We will not let that happen.”

Now, pause and think about that. Not only is that an outright cartoon version of reality, it’s delivered in exactly the same breathy, fake-dramatic, overly rehearsed tone that Canadians have been forced to endure from Justin Trudeau for nearly a decade. You could close your eyes, hear Carney speak, and think—oh, there’s Justin again. The same cadence. The same halting pauses. The same sanctimonious, over-coached delivery. Gag. They’re not even trying to sound different.

And that’s what makes this so offensive. They took Trudeau’s empty suit, shoved in another Bay Street insider, gave him the same script, and now they’re pretending it’s a new era. Spoiler: it’s not. It’s just the same swamp, rebooted with a different narrator.

Now, let’s talk about what Carney actually did in his first week as Prime Minister. Because it’s telling. He kicked out Chandra Arya, a sitting Liberal MP who had the audacity to run in the leadership race. Arya has been in Parliament for nearly a decade, and just like that, he was removed by a secretive party committee. Why? Carney wanted the Nepean riding for himself. And now he’s running there. No nomination contest. No vote. No accountability. Just a velvet-glove power grab by Canada’s ruling class. Trudeau couldn’t have done it better. Or, frankly, more shamelessly.

And then—this is the best part—Carney starts copying Conservative policies word for word. You can’t make this up. Conservatives said axe the carbon tax? Carney axes it. Conservatives said remove GST on new homes? Carney removes it—for first-time buyers, of course, to maintain the illusion of difference. Conservatives opposed the capital gains tax hike? Carney kills the increase and says it’s to “reward builders for taking risks.” That’s a quote. From Trudeau’s former economic advisor.

So just to recap: they prorogued Parliament to hold an internal leadership race during what they now claim is a national economic emergency. Then they oust a sitting MP to parachute their new leader into a safe seat. Then that leader—who spent years on the record defending carbon taxes, wealth taxes, capital gains increases, and every other progressive scheme—miraculously converts to Poilievre-ism in under ten days. All while telling Canadians that he represents stability.

It’s insulting. And it’s obvious. But it only works if Canadians forget how we got here. If they forget that this is the same party that spent the last ten years telling them inflation wasn’t real, that housing was affordable if you just tried harder, and that freedom of expression was a threat to democracy.

Carney stood there and said, “We are stronger together,” and I nearly choked. Because you know who else said that, constantly, while dividing the country by class, speech, region, and vaccination status? Justin Trudeau.

Mark Carney isn’t here to save Canada. He’s here to save the Liberal Party from the consequences of its own failures. And if they cared this much about trade with the U.S., they wouldn’t have shut down Parliament to hold a leadership contest. They would have done their jobs.

Conservatives: Because Copying Us Is All the Other Parties Have Left

Because not even 12 hours later, Pierre Poilievre walked onto a stage in Toronto—and it wasn’t just any event. The room was packed. And I don’t mean in the polite, stage-managed “standing room only” kind of way that the media uses to make a half-empty gymnasium look respectable. I mean jammed. Wall to wall. Flags waving, signs flying, real energy. There was no teleprompter glass, no softly lit hardwood floor and marble backdrop. Just thousands of people, jammed into a venue, ready to hear a man speak who—love him or not—is not pretending to be someone else.

And that’s what stood out. Because just a few hours earlier, the guy we’re supposed to believe is “Canada’s new leader” was up there imitating Trudeau like he was auditioning for a Heritage Minute. Meanwhile, Pierre Poilievre stepped up to the mic in front of a roaring crowd and gave the kind of speech you only give when you know the system is broken—and you’re done pretending it’s not.

He wasted no time. “They are replacing Justin Trudeau with his economic advisor and handpicked successor,” he said, with just the right amount of disbelief. “They are the same Liberals—with the same ministers, the same MPs, the same advisors, the same policies—and even today, making the same promises they’ve been breaking for over ten years.” And that was the shot. Because it’s true. You can swap the man at the podium, but if the script is the same, what exactly has changed?

And this crowd—Toronto of all places, once assumed to be off-limits for conservatives—ate it up. Not because Poilievre was delivering poetry. Not because he was spinning fantasy. But because he was naming the thing everyone else is afraid to say: that Carney is a continuation, not a correction. That the Liberals didn’t bring in a fixer—they brought in the architect of the mess.

He dug in hard on the hypocrisy. Carney signs a paper saying he’s axing the carbon tax, but in the next breath, he’s introducing an industrial carbon tax—one that, as Poilievre pointed out, will slam Canadian steel, fertilizer, aluminum—basically anything that still gets built in this country. And while Carney was trying to convince reporters that “big companies are not producing things that Canadians consume,” Poilievre rattled off a list—cars, microwaves, dishwashers, ovens, tools. “Do you use any of those things?” he asked the crowd. The answer was obvious.

This wasn’t some campaign rally gimmick. He was hitting on what people actually feel every time they check out at the grocery store, or look at their gas bill, or walk past an empty lot that could’ve been housing, but isn’t. And he tied it back—not to abstract ideology, but to specific betrayal. “Only six days after Trump threatened tariffs on our country,” he said, “Mark Carney moved his company’s headquarters to New York. Trump’s hometown.”

It landed because it was real.

He even took a swing at the latest attempt by Liberals to soft-peddle their record: making election promises they’ve already broken in the past. “Mr. Carney,” he said, “was literally repeating the election promise about income tax that Justin Trudeau and the Liberals broke ten years ago.” The same people. The same spin. “Same advisors, same strategic planners, same scriptwriters,” he said. “Even the same Gerald Butts.”

He mocked the contradictions. Carney as the man who opposed Canadian pipelines while his company invested billions in foreign fossil fuels. Carney as the guy calling for economic patriotism while quietly shifting money, assets, and power out of Canada. And for a man whose supporters frame him as a high-minded global statesman, Poilievre made him look like something much more familiar: just another Liberal insider, too comfortable to care about consequences.

Now, let’s be clear. This wasn’t some flawless sermon. Poilievre still leans heavily into slogans. “Bring it home.” “Common sense.” “Canada First.” But that didn’t matter. Because what mattered was that the people in that room knew he wasn’t acting. They knew he was angry. And they are too.

You could feel it. And if this momentum holds, it’s not going to matter how many new faces the Liberals roll out. Canadians aren’t voting on charisma anymore. They’re voting on pain. On price tags. On broken promises. And right now, the guy they sent out to fix the mess is being called out—loudly—as the man who helped make it.

NDP: From Enabler to Opponent

So after a packed-out Conservative rally where Poilievre lit up the stage and torched the Trudeau–Carney regime for everything from exploding deficits to a carbon tax dressed up in new packaging, we got this. Jagmeet Singh, the man who kept Justin Trudeau’s tired, collapsing government on life support for nine years, suddenly wants you to believe he’s the resistance.

You almost have to laugh.

There he was, standing in front of a carefully arranged room—less electric, more echo chamber—launching a campaign not against the very government he propped up, but against the man he helped install.

Jagmeet Singh opened his speech with the usual acknowledgments and land statements, moved quickly into identity platitudes, and then took a sharp turn into fantasy: painting himself as the anti-establishment warrior who “fought for dental care,” “delivered pharmacare,” and “forced the government to act.”

But hang on a second—what government was that again?

Oh right. The one he kept alive through confidence votes, budget approvals, and joint legislative deals. The one that spent the last decade inflating the housing market, ballooning the deficit, and silencing dissent. The government of Justin Trudeau. Which, as of this month, is now the government of Mark Carney, Trudeau’s handpicked successor.

You see where this is going?

Singh stood on that stage slamming Mark Carney—saying “he can’t be trusted,” that he “helped banks and investors profit off the housing crisis,” and that “he’s spent his career working for billionaires.” All true. But where was that spine the last nine years when he was voting to keep those exact same people in power?

Let’s not forget: Singh voted in favor of Trudeau’s emergency powers during the trucker convoy. He backed the carbon tax increases. He played defense every time the Liberals stumbled through scandal, censorship bills, and failed green policies. If Mark Carney is the wrong man to lead, then so was Justin Trudeau—and Singh stood right behind both of them, nodding along and calling it “progress.”

Now he wants to pretend he’s the alternative?

At one point, Singh even called Carney’s Canada a “house with a leaky roof,” and Poilievre’s vision a “cracked foundation.” He said, “neither will hold up when the storm hits.” But here’s the thing—he built the first house, brick by brick, with Trudeau. And now he wants credit for warning that it’s collapsing.

He also claimed he’s “the only federal leader not endorsed by Trump or Elon Musk.” Which would be hilarious if it wasn’t so desperate. That’s not a policy position—it’s a cry for relevance. When your platform is crumbling, just scream “Trump” loud enough and hope no one asks how you voted in Parliament last month.

Bottom line? Jagmeet Singh wants to run against a government he enabled, a system he reinforced, and a crisis he helped fund. He can’t walk into this election draped in the orange cape of the working class while pretending his fingerprints aren’t all over the Liberal disaster Canadians are living through.

Final Thoughts

So here we are. The stage is set. The actors are in position. And Canadians—God bless them—are being asked to choose between three brands of nonsense, each more insulting than the last.

Option one: Justin Trudeau 2.0—Mark Carney. The Liberals’ idea of change is hiring the guy who advised the last one. If that sounds familiar, it should. It’s like firing the drunk pilot, then handing the controls to the guy who told him to hit the throttle. Carney spent his career bouncing between central banks and billion-dollar boardrooms, lecturing working people about “sustainability” while padding portfolios in Manhattan. But now—suddenly—he’s wearing rolled-up sleeves, talking about “the middle class,” and reading lines from Pierre Poilievre’s economic playbook like he just discovered inflation existed. The best part? He delivers it all in that same Trudeau tone—breathy, performative, like he’s always on the verge of tears because he just cares so much. Gag. They didn’t even give him a new script. Just a new face, same puppet strings.

Option two: Jagmeet “I Have No Shame” Singh. This guy. He spent nine years keeping the Trudeau government alive—nine years voting for their budgets, defending their scandals, rubber-stamping their lockdowns, mandates, censorship bills, and everything else that turned this country upside down. But now that the Liberals slapped a different face on the same failing government, Singh wants you to believe he’s suddenly the resistance. Like we all forgot he was Trudeau’s human crutch in Parliament. “We delivered dental care,” he says. Buddy, you delivered Trudeau. Over and over again. The only thing Jagmeet Singh has resisted is accountability.

And now he wants to tell you Carney can’t be trusted? That he’s a Bay Street elitist? You voted for him. You kept his party in power. Spare us the late-stage conversion. You don’t get to spend nine years enabling a political dumpster fire and then run from the smoke like you just smelled it. It’s pathetic. And more importantly, it’s insulting.

Option three: Pierre Poilievre. Not perfect. Not polished. But also? Not pretending. He’s not fake crying at a podium. He’s not reciting script lines passed down from Liberal focus groups. He’s not flipping on policy every 72 hours. He’s telling Canadians the system is broken, and he’s naming names. He’s naming Carney. He’s naming Trudeau. He’s naming the insiders, the lobbyists, the international finance guys who’ve been running this country like their own ATM for the last decade.

And what are the Liberals doing? Stealing his policies. Axe the tax? Carney now says he’ll axe it. GST off homes? Carney’s on board. Capital gains hike? Poof—canceled. You know what that tells you? They know what they did. They know he’s right. And instead of admitting it, they’re plagiarizing the guy they called “dangerous.”

So what are we voting for?

We’re voting to find out just how stupid they think we are.

Because this isn’t just an election—it’s a referendum on whether Canadians have the memory span of a fruit fly. Whether we’re going to look at a Trudeau clone in a tailored suit and say, “Yes, that’s different.” Whether we’re going to let the guy who voted for all of it now tell us he’s the only one who can fix it. And whether we’re going to believe, for even one second, that the party that gave us this mess deserves one more try.

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

2025 Federal Election

Neil Young + Carney / Freedom Bros

Published on

Trish Wood is Critical Trish Wood

and bad news for our actual Freedom Fighters

On the same day I confirmed my worst fears about the Crown’s intentions for Tamara and Chris — Neil Young, one of the leading freedom fighters of my generation has made an ass of himself, yet again. But first, Chris Barber confirmed last night that the Crown is seeking two years in prison for both he and Tamara.

I spoke to Chris briefly and he is stoic but concerned. Chris and his family are blue-collar working people/farmers who live on the remote prairies. The possible dismantling of this truck feels vindictive to me. Never forget Mark Carney’s Op Ed calling for the financial destruction of the protesters and their supporters.

The Crown’s position seems over-the-top and believe me, he would not being doing this without approval from people higher up the food chain. Guess who?

I haven’t been a Neil Young fan since his tantrum in 2022 in favour of vaccines. While the great Eric Clapton was speaking out over his own vaccine injury — Young was firing missiles from the safety of his compound in California at those of us demanding scrutiny of an untested shot that didn’t even work. Specifically Neil’s target was Joe Rogan.

Until this morning I’d nearly forgotten about this absurd move by Young, along with Joni Mitchell, who also erupted — from her LA mansion to weigh in on a subject she knows zilch about.

Back in BC, in the 70s, as a young musician and poet, I was inspired by Joni’s earliest music and open-tuning guitar idiosyncrasies that were both enchanting and frustrating. Neil and Joni — two humans I’d believed all my life were actual rebels showed themselves to be Big Pharma shills, captured by propaganda and The Man in ways I’d never expected. I always believed Neil, whom I took my son to see on his sixteenth birthday — with Oasis — what a show — was perhaps the one person from my era who would remain eternally cool. But to quote my mother — we can’t have anything nice.

Here is the world-salad, fact-free, non-granular statement from Neil Young endorsing Mark Carney. It could have been written by Meghan Markle.

The full statement was not without a warning about Terrible Trump — as if Young has drunk every bit of Liberal-talking-point Kool-Aid down to the last drop.

So now, here we are again. Canada is facing threats to its very existence, incredibly from people we thought were our friends. They want our resources, they want our land, they want our fisheries, they want our water, they want our Arctic, maybe they want our souls. I know the US president could use a soul.

It takes more than bravado to fight this kind of a threat. It takes brains, deep economic knowledge of how the world works, it takes strong, intelligent strategies, and the ability to recognize and seize opportunities both at home and on the world stage, opportunities that can bring a new level of prosperity and safety to people…..people who right now may be paralyzed with fear as they look to the future of Canada and the world.

 

The PEACE sign-off was at best, ironic. Mark Carney is the very emblem of a globo/cap, bellicose, anti-human, pro-censorship agenda.

Carney thanked Neil in an X post for his support, invoking off course “Keep on Rockin’ in the Free World” — an anthem that represents the opposite of Carney’s plans for the country. We are not free now and will be less so should Neil’s current man-crush make it through. Carney is already hinting at more censorship.

The clip below captures how far political discourse in this country has fallen. Watch Carney ginning up more Trump hatred and fear on a day it looks like the polls are turning against the Liberals over Button Gate and his tepid response to the fraud committed by his campaign staff.

When in doubt, trot Trump out.

Something something Trump. Something something 51st state. Something Something – I will save you.

 

Hey, Neil and Mark — this is what Rockin’ in the Free World looks like in Canada today.

We were bound to end up here.

Former Yippie and activist Jerry Rubin started the trend when he tossed his beliefs to become a stock broker.

Sometime in the mid-1970s, Rubin reinvented himself as a businessman. Friend and fellow Yippie Stew Albert claimed Rubin’s new ambition was giving capitalists a social consciousness. In 1980 he began a new career on Wall Street as stockbroker with the brokerage firm John Muir & Co. “I know that I can be more effective today wearing a suit and tie and working on Wall Street than I can be dancing outside the walls of power,”[8] he said.

Maybe Rubin was correct. Those of us who “dance outside the walls of power” have none. Our current “banker” whose policies will condemn the working class to globalist feudalism is considered our saviour while Lich/Barber are facing prison for peaceful protests that actually saved lives.

Moral inversion. Legal inversion. Hold tight to your beliefs and the goodness in your hearts. There’s a possibility the judge will stay a prison sentence. But we must prepare for a bad outcome. I don’t even know how to think about it right now. It is indeed unthinkable.

What’s even worse is that people in this country will cheer, including our current and previous prime ministers.

Maxime Bernier confirmed to me last night that he is being interviewed by Tucker Carlson. This gives me some hope.

Live not by Lies….nurture this thought.

Stay critical.

#truthovertribe

Trish Wood is Critical is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Continue Reading

2025 Federal Election

Bureau Exclusive: Chinese Election Interference Network Tied to Senate Breach Investigation

Published on

As Canada’s election unfolds, fresh questions emerge over whether foreign interference has reached Parliament’s inner chambers.

A Canadian Parliamentarian assessed by national security officials to be part of a Toronto-based Chinese consulate election interference network was the subject of a high-profile foreign interference investigation into an alleged breach of Canada’s Senate, The Bureau has confirmed through multiple intelligence sources.

Sources said the investigation examined allegations that the Parliamentarian enabled a close associate—described as a female Chinese national—to bypass Senate security protocols.

A source familiar with the Senate breach allegation said the probe was triggered by a complaint from a sitting Canadian senator, who believed they had observed a troubling pattern of behavior involving the Parliamentarian and their Chinese companion. The concern, the source said, centered on the alleged bypassing of Senate security screening, unauthorized entry into the parliamentary precinct, and access to secure Government of Canada computer systems.

While The Bureau could not independently confirm whether the allegations were ultimately substantiated, the details align closely with broader risks outlined in NSICOP’s 2024 findings on foreign interference, which stated that CSIS’s investigations were valid, and that China—and other states, including India—had established deeply concerning relationships with Canadian lawmakers.

NSICOP warned that Parliamentarians across all parties are potential targets for interference by foreign states. The committee found that such operations may be overt or covert, and that members of both the House of Commons and the Senate are considered “high-value” targets. Foreign states, the report stated, “use traditional tradecraft to build relationships that can be used to influence, coerce or exploit.”

NSICOP concluded that during the period under review, Beijing “developed clandestine networks surrounding candidates and elected officials to gain undisclosed influence and leverage over nomination processes, elections, parliamentary business and government decision-making.”

Records indicate that the Parliamentarian in question has maintained longstanding ties to several diaspora organizations affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party—including the Jiangsu Commerce Council of Canada, a business group based in Markham linked to Beijing’s United Front Work Department, and now tied to a controversial meeting with Prime Minister Mark Carney during his leadership campaign in January.

Specifically on Chinese interference, NSICOP’s explosive report stated: “The United Front Work Department… has established community organizations to facilitate influence operations against specific members of Parliament and infiltrated existing community associations to reorient them toward supporting CCP policies and narratives.”

In an interview with The Bureau, a sitting senator—who asked not to be named due to the sensitivity of the matter—was asked whether they believed NSICOP’s findings were valid and whether Chinese state actors had influenced the Senate.

“Without a doubt. Without a doubt,” the senator said. “I’ve seen it with my own eyes. Some speeches in the Senate of Canada—one would not be surprised if they had been written directly in the offices of the United Front in Beijing. Many of the senators, if you see the positions they articulate, the way they articulate and the way they vote, speaks volumes about who they stand with. But the one thing about being a public office holder—at some point in time, you’ve got to stand on your feet.”

Those observations are echoed by findings in the NSICOP report, which states: “Foreign states developed clandestine networks surrounding candidates and elected officials to gain undisclosed influence.”

The report also found that “some Parliamentarians are either semi-witting or witting participants in the efforts of foreign states to interfere in Canadian politics… including providing privileged information to foreign intelligence officers.”

However, Justice Marie-Josée Hogue, in a contrary conclusion issued through her federal inquiry, assessed that “no evidence” had been presented of intentional wrongdoing by Parliamentarians implicated in CSIS foreign interference investigations. Instead, she concluded that some officials may have made “bad decisions.”

Still, specifics of the investigation into the Parliamentarian strongly resemble the broader findings of NSICOP—particularly if the allegation of providing inappropriate access to Canada’s Senate facilities to a Chinese national is substantiated.

In interviews conducted between 2022 and 2025, The Bureau’s sources—who requested anonymity due to fears of professional retribution—said they believe Canada’s national security agencies were inhibited from pursuing broader investigations into Parliamentarians and politicians across all levels of government. They described how CSIS agents’ efforts to advance foreign interference cases were at times delayed or obstructed by senior managers reluctant to scrutinize powerful political figures.

More broadly, the sources asserted that CSIS remains structurally constrained from effectively investigating senior officials and Parliamentarians. As a result, they warned, investigations into those broadly referenced in the 2024 NSICOP Special Report on Foreign Interference have not—and likely could not—produce meaningful deterrence against ongoing threats from China and other hostile foreign states.

The Bureau’s review of open-source records shows that the Parliamentarian at the center of the Senate allegations has, from the 2019 CSIS investigation to the present, maintained significant ties to multiple Canadian organizations linked to the Chinese Communist Party’s United Front Work Department.

These include the Confederation of Toronto Chinese Canadian Organizations, the Jiangsu Commerce Council of Canada, and a third British Columbia–based entity, which has documented connections to both the United Front and the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference—an entity the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency has identified as Beijing’s central united front body.

The matter has gained urgency in the context of Canada’s ongoing federal election, in which Mark Carney’s party has come under scrutiny following The Globe and Mail’s revelation of his campaign’s January 2025 meeting with JCCC leadership—a meeting Carney’s team later denied. Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre has also faced criticism over his 2022 leadership race, which, according to documents and interviews reviewed by The Bureau, was allegedly targeted by both Chinese foreign interference networks and individuals aligned with the Indian government.

As previously reported by The Bureau, during the pandemic, several Liberal Party officials were involved in a PPE shipment initiative coordinated with the JCCC and authorities tied to the Chinese Communist Party. Official CCP correspondence praised the JCCC’s donations to China, and the group’s response acknowledged its operations were “organized under the guidance” of the United Front Work Department and other Party-aligned bodies. One co-signer of that letter was a senior Liberal organizer who had also served as JCCC president.

Continue Reading

Trending

X