Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

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

National

Canada’s NDP is now calling women ‘non-males’

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Jonathon Van Maren

Has Canada become a two-party system? This is one of the key questions political strategists and MPs have been asking each other in Ottawa. In the past federal election, the New Democratic Party’s (NDP’s) support collapsed, with the progressive standard-bearer securing only 7 seats (12 are necessary for official party status) and getting only 6 percent of the popular vote. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives wonder—one with glee, the other with concern—if the NDP will survive.

The NDP, however, is filled with self-loathing for its blue collar, labor roots. It is now the party of “sexual diversity.” In September, interim leader Don Davies admitted that the party needed to recognize that there were differences between the interests of straight, white male workers and a non-white lesbian; the party then promptly demanded that at least 50 percent of the signatures collected for the leadership race be from NDP members who do not identify as a “cisgender male,” but from “equity-seeking groups” such as non-white people, Indigenous members, LGBTQ+ people, and people with disabilities.

“Cisgender” is LGBT-speak for someone who has a “gender identity” that “aligns” with their body; basically, it means someone who is not transgender. Or as the comedian Norm Macdonald noted, “cisgender” is a term used to stigmatize normal people.

The NDP did not learn from the combination of chortling and contempt that greeted this story; they take themselves far too seriously for that. In fact, they have lurched directly into another gender scandal. According to the UK Daily Mail, the NDP “has come under scrutiny for an email that appeared to be sent to members, announcing newly elected leaders as ‘non-male’ and ‘male.’” The email was shared on X by journalist Jonathan Kay:

The email, which Kay screenshotted, was sent by the New Westminster-Burnaby-Maillardville chapter of the NDP and “detailed highlights from the party’s last annual general meeting. The new members who identified as ‘non-male’ were listed as Doris Mah, Alodie Yen, Agnes Jackman, Penny Oyama, and Marla Penner. The ‘male’ members were listed as Dante Abbey, Eric Van Fleet, Aidan McDonough, Peter Julian, and Kebebe Abate.”

Hilariously, the NDP—which struggles not to say that they resent being the party of the white working man and desperately want to be the party of intersectional two-spirited lesbianism instead—is now being accused of “erasing women” due to their linguistic kowtowing to the transgender movement. What is a woman? Well, the NDP can’t quite say. And so instead, they simply refer to “non-males,” which I’m sure seemed quite an efficient way to solve the problem to whoever made the list. Doris, Agnes, Marla, and Penny did not say whether they appreciated being downgraded from “women” to “non-males.”

This is all very amusing, but it poses a problem for the Conservative Party. With the NDP determined to offend as many voters as possible in their search for intersectionality, the Liberals—who are, in practice, just as woke but far more powerful—actually manage to look somewhat moderate. Mark Carney may show up at Vancouver Pride and hug a near-naked LGBT activist wearing nothing but a thong, but he doesn’t use the term “cisgender” or refer to women as “non-males.” But like Trudeau—who has left politics for Katy Perry—he does raise the LGBT flag over Parliament Hill every June.

The NDP continues their freefall. The Liberals are close behind them, but with an adult-looking central banker in charge. The Conservatives need to provide an alternative. If they need ideas, they might look to Premier Danielle Smith in Alberta, who, despite being non-male, has more guts than any of them.

Featured Image

Jonathon’s writings have been translated into more than six languages and in addition to LifeSiteNews, has been published in the National PostNational ReviewFirst Things, The Federalist, The American Conservative, The Stream, the Jewish Independent, the Hamilton SpectatorReformed Perspective Magazine, and LifeNews, among others. He is a contributing editor to The European Conservative.

Continue Reading

National

Canadian MPs order ethics investigation into Mark Carney’s corporate interests

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

The House of Commons ethics committee voted to look into personal financial disclosures as well as blind trust arrangements made before Mark Carney became prime minister.

Canadian MPs voted to launch an ethics investigation of Liberal Prime Minister Mark Carney to look into whether or not there is a conflict of interest because of his personal “corporate and shareholding interests” while serving as the nation’s leader.

“The standard needs to be very high for people who want to serve in Canada’s highest office,” said Conservative MP Michael Barrett, who sponsored the motion.

“Canadians expect that. We need this transparency,” he added.

Conservative, NDP, and Bloc Québécois MPs all voted in favor in a 170-164 vote to pass Barrett’s motion calling for the probe. Green Party leader Elizabeth May was the only non-Liberal MP to vote against the motion, joining all Liberal MPs.

The motion asks the House of Commons ethics committee to look into Carney’s personal financial disclosures as well as blind trust arrangements he made before becoming prime minister.

This past July, a 16-page report detailed Carney’s private investments that include stock options in federally regulated companies such as Coca-Cola, Tesla, Canadian Pacific, Netflix, oil companies, and Microsoft.

Carney’s holdings are now in a blind trust with a “conflict of interest screen.”

According to Barrett, “Canadians are the ones left blind while the Prime Minister continues to be aware of how he can benefit from the decisions he takes, how they will improve his financial standing and how he can make more money based on the decisions he or his government takes while he is in office.”

“That is why this review of the Conflict of Interest Act is so necessary,” he said.

“Should a Prime Minister have investments in tax havens? I would say no,” Barrett told his fellow MPs while speaking about the motion.

“They should be paying taxes like everyone else, not using accounting tricks that the wealthy rely on to avoid paying their fair share.”

Carney’s investments included shares in more than 600 worldwide companies. Barrett and now most MPs want answers as to whether or not this creates a conflict of interest.

The motion now means a list of high-profile witnesses will be called to testify November 21 regarding Carney’s alleged financial conflicts of interest. Witnesses include Carney’s chief of staff, Marc-André Blanchard, as well as Brookfield executives Bruce Flatt and Connor Teskey.

Carney was in Singapore when the motion was called forth.

Before Carney became PM earlier this year, he worked as an executive for Brookfield Asset Management, where he, as reported  by LifeSiteNews, championed the idea of “net zero” climate goals to spur a financial “revolution.”

Shortly after becoming PM, he admitted he would “probably” have to recuse himself on certain governmental matters because of potential conflicts of interest.

Before becoming prime minister, Carney worked for Brookfield Asset Management and the United Nations special envoy on climate action.

Recent reports claim that Carney held $6.8 million in Brookfield Asset Management Ltd. stock options before quitting the company.

Continue Reading

Trending

X