National
Freeland Resignation Reaction: Pierre Poilievre Speaks to Reporters in Ottawa
From Pierre Poilievre and the Conservative Party of Canada
Transcript below:
What we’re seeing is the Government of Canada spiralling out of control right before our eyes and at the very worst time.
Today, mere hours before Trudeau’s Finance Minister was to deliver a Fall Economic Statement that was expected to smash through her already massive deficit targets, she announced she no longer has confidence in the Prime Minister. Canadians were already anxious about the reckless $40 billion deficit the government had announced last spring. But today, in mere hours, they were expected to learn that it was much higher than that, threatening our social programs and our fiscal stability, right in the middle of a potential trade war.
The Prime Minister, with the help and instigation of Carbon Tax Carney, pushed Ms. Freeland to bring on massive, unsustainable, irresponsible spending increases that blew through her self-imposed guardrail. He thought that he would simply push her through that guardrail and off the cliff so that she, and not Trudeau and Mr. Carney, would take the blame for the crisis that he and they caused. To continue the chaos, the moment the Finance Minister resigned, the government’s published order of precedent meant that Francois-Philippe Champagne instantaneously became the finance minister. But now, he tells us he doesn’t have the job and doesn’t want the job.
So it goes to the next minister who’s on the published order of precedent, and that is Randy Boissonnault, more commonly known as the ‘Two Randys; the gentleman who had to resign because he falsely claimed he was Indigenous, falsely claimed that there was more than one Randy when it was all him and all in his head. And he is now technically our Finance Minister as we speak. We don’t know for sure though if he’ll still be Finance Minister in three and a half hours when the scheduled Fall Economic Statement is expected to land.
That update, by the way, is currently covered by a black blanket underneath the table. No one is allowed to look at it, even though journalists and parliamentarians showed up to read it in briefing rooms earlier today.
So here we are. Everything is spiralling out of control. Out-of-control spending and bureaucracy has doubled housing costs, with 1,400 homeless encampments in Ontario alone. Out-of-control immigration has led to refugee camps opening in suburban Canada, and then we have 500,000 people in the country illegally, according to government estimates. Out-of-control crime overtakes our once-tranquil streets, with gun crime having doubled. Out-of-control drugs and disorder add to the chaos, with 47,000 of our people dying of overdoses since Trudeau legalized drug laws, stopped enforcing them, and allowed limitless sums of fentanyl ingredients into our country. Out-of-control inflation has followed -of-control money printing, which has sent out-of-control demand to our food banks, which are running out of food altogether. Out-of-control spending has doubled our national debt, boosted interest rates, and threatened our social programs. And it’s not just Freeland who thinks this Prime Minister is out of control. Now, housing Minister Sean Fraser has resigned in the middle of a housing crisis.
The Finance Minister is resigning in the middle of an economic crisis, and a fifth of his liberal caucus has lost confidence in him. Justin Trudeau has lost control and yet he clings to power. We cannot accept this kind of chaos, division and weakness while we’re staring down the barrel of a 25 percent tariff from our biggest trading partner and closest ally, which by the way, is headed by a newly elected president with a strong and fresh mandate; a man who can spot weakness from a mile away.
Ms. Freeland has been Mr. Trudeau’s most trusted minister now for a decade. She knows him better than anyone, and she knows that he’s out of control. She said this, “Our country today faces a grave challenge. The incoming administration in the United States is pursuing a policy of aggressive economic nationalism, including a threat of a 25 percent tariffs. We need to take that threat extremely seriously. That means keeping our fiscal powder dry today, so we have the reserves we may need for a coming tariff war. That means eschewing costly political gimmicks, which we can Ill afford, and which make Canadians doubt that we recognize the gravity of the moment.”
“I know Canadians would recognize and respect such an approach. They know when we are working for them, and they equally know when we are working for ourselves. Inevitably, our time in government will come to an end.” And it is coming to an end because we simply cannot go on like this.
It is up to Jagmeet Singh now to make that realization. Mr. Trudeau is being held in office by one man, Jagmeet Singh. A fifth of Liberal MPs have written a letter for him to resign. His Deputy Prime Minister has walked out on him. His housing minister has quit, that on top of numerous other female ministers who stormed out after his appalling mistreatment and abuse and dishonesty towards them. 80 percent of Canadians have lost confidence in this Prime Minister.
So why is Jagmeet Singh making the entire country wait for him to get his pension? That is the question today. To patriotic Liberals across the country, my message is this: you supported this government in good faith because you thought it was the right thing for the country, and you are good and decent patriotic people who have been let down by the Prime Minister and his top advisor, Mr. Carney, who have betrayed Ms. Freeland and you. Carney and Trudeau, the backroom boys, have taken the Liberal Party away from anything it used to stand for.
Let’s bring home the common sense consensus of Liberals who believed in liberty and Conservatives who believed in conserving it. Fiscal responsibility, compassion for our neighbours. These are the shared common values that will bind up our nation’s wounds and bring us back together. Now is the time for a carbon tax election to turn the decision away from me or Mr. Trudeau or Mr. Singh or Mr. Carney and put it in the hands of the people. I know that they will make the right decision.
From the Fraser Institute
By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari
As noted by the Trudeau government, plastic substitutes contribute to lower air quality and “typically have higher climate change impacts” due to higher GHG emissions.
Recently at the White House, President Donald Trump signed an executive order reversing the Biden administration’s plan to phase out plastic straws. The Trudeau government, however, continues with its plan to ban single-use plastics, even though this prohibition will have minimal impact worldwide, will actually increase waste in Canada, and force a transition to alternatives that impose greater environmental harm. Rather than doubling down on a flawed policy, the next federal government should reverse Trudeau’s plastic ban.
In 2021, the Trudeau government classified plastic items as “toxic,” paving the way for the ban on the manufacturing, importing and selling of checkout bags, cutlery, stir sticks and straws—all single-use plastics. In 2023, the Federal Court deemed the designation “unreasonable and unconstitutional”—but the Trudeau government defended the measure and is appealing, with a ruling expected this year.
According to the latest available data, Canada’s contributes 0.04 per cent to global plastic waste. The United States contributes 0.43 per cent—more than 10 times Canada’s share. But neither country is a major contributor to global plastic waste.
According to a 2024 article published in Nature, a leading scientific journal, no western country ranks among the top 90 global plastic polluters, thanks to their near-total waste collection and controlled disposal systems. Conversely, eight countries—India, Nigeria, Indonesia, China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Russia and Brazil—generate more than half of global plastic waste. And nearly 75 per cent of the world’s ocean plastic comes from Asia with only six countries (Philippines, India, Malaysia, China, Indonesia and Myanmar) accounting for most of the world’s ocean plastic pollution.
The Trudeau government’s own science assessment, cited in the court appeal, states that 99 per cent of Canada’s plastic waste is already disposed of safely through recycling, incinerating and environmentally-friendly landfills. Despite these facts, plastic has become a target for blanket restrictions without fully considering its benefits or the downsides of switching to alternatives.
Consider this. Plastics are lightweight, durable and indispensable to modern life. From medical devices, food packaging, construction materials, textiles, electronics and agricultural equipment, plastics play a critical role in sectors that improve living standards.
Alternatives to plastic come with their own environmental cost. Again, according to the government’s own analysis, banning single-use plastics will actually increase waste generation rather than reduce it. While the government expects to remove 1.5 million tonnes of plastics by 2032 with the prohibition, it will generate nearly twice as much that weight in waste from alternatives such as paper, wood and aluminum over the same period. Put simply, the ban will result in more, not less, waste in Canada.
And there’s more. Studies suggest that plastic substitutes such as paper are heavier, require more water and energy to be produced, demand more energy to transport, contribute to greater smog formation, present more ozone depletion potential and result in higher greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
As noted by the Trudeau government, plastic substitutes contribute to lower air quality and “typically have higher climate change impacts” due to higher GHG emissions.
While plastic pollution is a pressing global environmental issue, Canada is not a major contributor to this problem. The rationale behind the Trudeau government’s plastic ban lacks foundation, and as major economies including the U.S. go back to plastic, Canada’s plastic prohibition becomes increasingly futile. The next federal government, whoever that may be, should reverse this plastic ban, which will do more harm than good.
Julio Mejía
Policy Analyst
Elmira Aliakbari
Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
Without reform, Canada risks losing nearly half of its dairy farms by 2030, according to experts
Few topics in Canadian agriculture generate as much debate as supply management in the dairy sector. The issue gained renewed attention when former U.S. President Donald Trump criticized Canada’s protectionist stance during NAFTA renegotiations, underscoring the need to reassess the system’s long-term viability.
While proponents argue that supply management ensures financial stability for farmers and shields them from global market volatility, critics contend that it inflates consumer prices, limits competition, and stifles innovation. A policy assessment titled Supply Management 2.0: A Policy Assessment and a Possible Roadmap for the Canadian Dairy Sector, conducted by researchers at Dalhousie University and the University of Guelph, sheds light on the system’s inefficiencies and presents a compelling case for reform.
Designed in the 1970s to regulate production and stabilize dairy prices, Canada’s supply management system operates through strict production quotas and high import tariffs. However, as successive trade agreements such as the USMCA, CETA, and CPTPP erode these protections, the system appears increasingly fragile. The federal government’s $3-billion compensation package to dairy farmers for hypothetical trade losses is a clear indication that the current structure is unsustainable.
Instead of fostering resilience, supply management has created an industry that is increasingly dependent on government payouts rather than market-driven efficiencies. If current trends persist, Canada could lose nearly half of its dairy farms by 2030 — regardless of who is in the White House.
Consumer sentiment is also shifting. Younger generations are questioning the sustainability and transparency of the dairy industry, particularly in light of scandals such as ButterGate, where palm oil supplements were used in cow feed to alter butterfat content, making butter harder at room temperature. Additionally, undisclosed milk dumping of anywhere between 600 million to 1 billion litres annually has further eroded public trust. These factors indicate that the industry is failing to align with evolving consumer expectations.
One of the most alarming findings in the policy assessment is the extent of overcapitalization in the dairy sector. Government compensation payments, coupled with rigid production quotas, have encouraged inefficiency rather than fostering innovation. Unlike their counterparts in Australia and the European Union — where deregulation has driven productivity gains — Canadian dairy farmers remain insulated from competitive pressures that could otherwise drive modernization.
The policy assessment also highlights a growing geographic imbalance in dairy production. Over 74% of Canada’s dairy farms are concentrated in Quebec and Ontario, despite only 61% of the national population residing in these provinces. This concentration exacerbates supply chain inefficiencies and increases price disparities. As a result, consumers in Atlantic Canada, the North, and Indigenous communities face disproportionately high dairy costs, raising serious food security concerns. Addressing these imbalances requires policies that promote regional diversification in dairy production.
A key element of modernization must involve a gradual reform of production quotas and tariffs. The existing quota system restricts farmers’ ability to respond dynamically to market signals. While quota allocation is managed provincially, harmonizing the system at the federal level would create a more cohesive market. Moving toward a flexible quota model, with expansion mechanisms based on demand, would increase competitiveness and efficiency.
Tariff policies also warrant reassessment. While tariffs provide necessary protection for domestic producers, they currently contribute to artificially inflated consumer prices. A phased reduction in tariffs, complemented by direct incentives for farmers investing in productivity-enhancing innovations and sustainability initiatives, could strike a balance between maintaining food sovereignty and fostering competitiveness.
Despite calls for reform, inertia persists due to entrenched interests within the sector. However, resistance is not a viable long-term strategy. Industrial milk prices in Canada are now the highest in the Western world, making the sector increasingly uncompetitive on a global scale. While supply management also governs poultry and eggs, these industries have adapted more effectively, remaining competitive through efficiency improvements and innovation. In contrast, the dairy sector continues to grapple with structural inefficiencies and a lack of modernization.
That said, abolishing supply management outright is neither desirable nor practical. A sudden removal of protections would expose Canadian dairy farmers to aggressive foreign competition, risking rural economic stability and jeopardizing domestic food security. Instead, a balanced approach is needed — one that preserves the core benefits of supply management while integrating market-driven reforms to ensure the industry remains competitive, innovative and sustainable.
Canada’s supply management system, once a pillar of stability, has become an impediment to progress. As global trade dynamics shift and consumer expectations evolve, policymakers have an opportunity to modernize the system in a way that balances fair pricing with market efficiency. The recommendations from Supply Management 2.0 suggest that regional diversification of dairy production, value-chain-based pricing models that align production with actual market demand, and a stronger emphasis on research and development could help modernize the industry. Performance-based government compensation, rather than blanket payouts that preserve inefficiencies, would also improve long-term sustainability.
The question is no longer whether reform is necessary, but whether the dairy industry and policymakers are prepared to embrace it. A smarter, more flexible supply management framework will be crucial in ensuring that Canadian dairy remains resilient, competitive, and sustainable for future generations.
Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is senior director of the agri-food analytics lab and a professor in food distribution and policy at Dalhousie University.
Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers Releases Seven-Point Plan to Unleash Canada’s Energy Potential
The Next Canadian Federal Election Will Also be a Crucial Energy Issues Election
Federal government could save $10.7 billion this fiscal year by eliminating eight ineffective spending programs
Zelensky Met with Dems Before He Met President Trump
-
Banks10 hours ago“Trade-Based Money Laundering IS THE FENTANYL CRISIS”: Sources expose Chinese-Mexican-Canadian Crime Convergence
-
Business1 day agoNext federal government has to unravel mess created by 10 years of Trudeau policies
-
Business1 day agoTrump’s trade war and what it means for Canada
-
Business14 hours agoBitcoin hits $90K as Trump plans U.S. crypto reserve
-
International1 day agoCommerce Secretary on Oval Office debacle: Zelensky flies to Washington to sign deal then scuttles it
-
Business2 days agoLutnick says Trump could announce tariff compromise Wednesday
-
International20 hours agoWashington Senate passes bill to jail priests for not violating Seal of Confession
-
Business2 days agoTrump promises tariff revenue, fair trade and more jobs