After a decade spinning in a maelstrom, we’re headed straight into a hurricane.

The Trudeau Liberals’ hegemonic hold on Canada’s political, cultural and economic life is now officially and formally winding down. Parliament has been prorogued until March 24, although it isn’t certain that Canada will have a new Parliament with a new prime minister even by June, when Canada is supposed to be hosting the G7, by which time the Liberals are expected to have a new leader too.

Who knows. We’ll get there. Justin Trudeau will be gone, but this is what you should bear in mind as Canada careens and lists and tumbles out of this mess.

The world’s first “postnational state” that Trudeau inaugurated in 2015, with the able assistance of Dominic Barton’s McKinsey & Company and all the resources the Canada-China Business Council threw at the project, was never intended to be some four-year thing to be evaluated by voters in the ordinary course of events.

It was built to be permanent. Its undoing will require one hell of an effort, and in the meantime Donald Trump’s inauguration – a $150 million extravaganza funded by Pfizer, OpenAI, Amazon, Meta and a constellation of cryptocurrency firms – is set for January 20.

That’s just two weeks away, and Trump has pledged to impose what would be a crippling 25 percent tariff on goods from Canada and Mexico “on Day 1” unless measures regarding flows of illegal migrants and drugs are somehow stopped.

We’ll see. The thing is, on Day 1, Canada’s federal government will be locked in the interregnum between the Trudeau epoch and Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre’s new “common sense” order. We’re sitting ducks.

What would a Conservative Great Leap Forward look like?

Poilievre deserves much credit for correctly diagnosing the several possibly fatal wounds the Justin Trudeau decade has inflicted on this country. About that, here’s something I found fascinating over the holiday hiaitus.

It would be worth your time to take in Poilievre’s conversation with Dark Web archdruid Jordan Peterson over the weekend, and then have a listen to the year-end remarks of the lonesome American socialist warlord Bernie Sanders.

Going by my own 90-minute encounter with Peterson a couple of weeks ago I can say that it isn’t easy to keep the conversation going exactly along the lines one might prefer. Not to criticize Peterson’s interviewing style but I can’t fault Poilievre for failing to get into any number of the the existential dysfunctions Canada is enduring.

Even so, Poilievre comes off more like an intelligent and slightly nerdy Canadian version of Bernie Sanders than the doofus Canadian iteration of Donald Trump that the Liberals and New Democrats have so strenously tried and failed to make him out to be.

Fun example: On Saturday, the NDP MP Peter Julian attributed Poilievre’s popularity to a “massive foreign interference strategy. . . the only reason Pierre Poilievre is leader of the Conservative Party right now.” He didn’t say this while drunk in a private conversation among fellow NDPers. Julian said this publicly, on the insufferable Elon Musk’s X, drawing on a thoroughly debunked conspiracy theory from last August.

At least the Conservatives are not crazy people

Today, the Feast of the Epiphany, is the anniversary of the Trumpist insurrection of January 6, 2021, an event that remains an open and profoundly embarrassing wound among Americans. I fully realize that there are some yobbish Putin fanciers at the outer fringes of Canada’s Conservative Party, but give me a break.

Can you imagine Canadian Conservatives storming Parliament Hill, smashing windows and breaking down doors and baying for blood? Of course you can’t. And you certainly can’t imagine Poilievre even coming close to countenancing such conduct, so don’t even try.

I don’t carry any water for Poilievre, but I am persuaded that he’s genuinely and sincerely concerned about the wretched state of affairs to which working-class Canadians have been reduced. Besides, Poilievre isn’t just the best alternative we’ve got. He’s the only alternative. Jagmeet Singh’s New Democrats are a caricature of the party they inherited, so here we are.

My National Post readers and this newsletter’s subscribers will know that I am not bubbling with optimism that Poilievre’s remedies can possibly heal what Canada has sustained. Without getting into all that, I’ve had my say, and while Poilievre’s overall analysis of the Trudeau era’s calamities is grounded in hard facts and driven by empathy, his “Axe the tax, Build the homes, Fix the budget, Stop the crime” remedies are woefully insufficient to the circumstances of the real world.

For starters, the immediate crisis a Poilievre government will face is the major cause of the economic dislocation we’re facing, and he’s been quiet about it: It’s not just that Canada’s housing and jobs economies have no room for roughly three million people in this country who are here on various kinds of “temporary” status. It’s more like 4.9 million people whose visas are going to expire before the end of this year.

No amount of tax-axing is going to deal with this, and you’d need something along the lines of a Mao-era Great Leap Forward to “build the homes” to house them all in residential markets that would be even vaguely affordable for most people. And to do that you’d have to tear down Canada’s cities and build a grim Leninplatz on top of each heap of rubble.

Here’s just one other little thing that could stand in the way of any effective legislative agenda that Poilievre might want to embark upon. Almost all the current occupants of the Upper Chamber are senators appointed by Justin Trudeau. So, that’ll be fun: on top of everything else, the prospect of forcing a constitutional crisis just to get anything done.

Not to be dreary, but about the brokenness, but see Notes on the Coming Disturbances, and a earlier assessment: Nearing Nine Years Since Year Zero, So there’s all that.

It’s not just Canada that’s broken. It’s the Liberal Party.

To build the new postnational state in place of what we’ve been badgered to understand as the genocidal old-stock white supremacist settler-state patriarchy that Trudeau so gallantly set out to save from itself, the Liberal Party had to be refashioned to serve as the conduit to Parliamentary power and privilege. See It’s 2025. Welcome to the Thunderdome.

Bear in mind that Justice Marie-Josée Hogue’s Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference in Federal Electoral Processes and Democratic Institutions is expected to issue its final report before the end of this month. The inquiry’s long-delayed and filibustered timetable had anticipated that Hogue’s proposed structural changes would be in place well before what was presumed to be an October 2025 federal election.

Here’s the thing about that. Never mind that owing to Team Trudeau’s rewriting of the party constitution we still don’t know who elected Trudeau to the leadership of the Liberal Party in the first place, and there’s been no inquiry into the massive infusions of weirdly coordinated Mandarin-bloc donations to Trudeau’s own riding association warchest in the aftermath of his 2015 capture of a Parliamentary majority.

See: Liberals are leaving an ungodly mess for Poilievre’s Conservatives to clean up; New report details just how easily China can mess with Canadian elections. In that piece, and in the Thunderdome newsletter, I refer at length to the findings in this in-depth analysis published by the Canadian International Council: Beyond general elections: How could foreign actors influence the prime ministership?

While all the talking-head punditry and chat-show panelists are preoccupied with speculation about just who might emerge as Justin Trudeau’s successor, here’s just one fact that has gone unnoticed. If you simply happen to be domiciled even temporarily in this country, you only have to be 14 years old to cast your vote for the next leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

All for now.

Yes, this was a newsletter with no paywall.

To keep this project going, do please take up a paid subscription.

Subscribe to The Real Story

Related Topics:feature TerryGlavin TheRealStory TrudeauResigns

Up Next

Trump Calls Biden’s Drilling Ban ‘Worst Abuse Of Power I’ve Ever Seen’

Don't Miss

The Authoritarian Legacy of Justin Trudeau

Todayville

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

Canada’s attack on religious charities makes no fiscal sense

Business / 4 hours ago

When Words Cook the Books: The Politics of ‘Investment-Speak’

Alberta / 11 hours ago

Nobel Prize nods to Alberta innovation in carbon capture

Business

Canada’s attack on religious charities makes no fiscal sense

Published on October 30, 2025

Todayville

This article supplied by Troy Media.

By Lee Harding

Ottawa is targeting the charitable tax status of faith-based groups. The fallout could hit every Canadian community

The possibility that Canadian religious organizations will lose their charitable status has never been more real.

On Jan. 6, Parliament’s Standing Committee on Finance recommended numerous changes, including Recommendation 430: “Amend the Income Tax Act to define a charity, which would remove the privileged status of ‘advancement of religion’ as a
charitable purpose, meaning faith-based organizations could lose access to tax benefits.”

The B.C. Humanist Association, a secular advocacy group, has long advocated for removing religion as a stand-alone charitable purpose. That idea is reflected in Recommendation 430. Before adopting such a proposal, the finance committee should have reviewed a study published last November by Cardus, a Canadian think tank focused on faith, civil society and public policy.

The Cardus study examined 64 Christian congregations in various provinces to assess the socio-economic value of their impact. It suggested that congregations make an $18.2-billion socioeconomic contribution to Canadian society, well in excess of tax exemptions and rebates equal to $1.7 billion. The net positive result of $16.5 billion—a “halo effect”—is more than 10
times the value of the tax exemptions.

The implications are clear: society will be worse off if the loss of religious charitable status leads to a drop of more than 10 per cent in donations to affected charities. Why risk it?

When congregations unravel, society follows in ways that go beyond mere economics. As Cardus explains, churches often provide space, often at no cost or below-market rates, for cultural and artistic events, recreation and sports, education, social services and other community activities. They also deliver addiction recovery, counselling and mental-health support, child care, refugee sponsorship and settlement services for newcomers, education and food banks.

Whether institutionally or personally, helping people is often an integral extension of religious belief. A 2012 Statistics Canada study found that the 14 per cent of Canadians who attend church weekly offer 29 per cent of the nation’s volunteer hours and provide 45 per cent of all charitable donations.

No party has explicitly endorsed removing charitable status for religion. But the Bloc Québécois, NDP and Liberals dominated the committee recommendation to remove religion as a charitable purpose. The Conservative Party, which held a minority on the committee, was alone in opposing it outright.

Randy Crosson, executive director of Freedoms Advocate, is organizing a national pushback. In a speech given Oct. 1 to the Regina Civic Awareness and Action Network, he said the recommendation was a “shot across the bow” to gauge public reaction.

“This isn’t just about donors losing tax receipts. It’s about churches losing buildings, staff losing jobs, and ministries being forced to shut down due to reduced donations. This is a direct threat to the future of faith in Canada, and it’s happening fast,” Crosson explained in an online video.

Crosson said religion enjoys less participation and more opposition than in previous decades. Church attendance has slumped since the pandemic, and some Canadians continue to criticize churches for their historical involvement in residential schools.

The Quebec government has also pursued a strongly secular approach to public policy. In 2019, Quebec’s Bill 21 used the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution to ban public servants from wearing religious symbols, such as hijabs, turbans or crucifixes. In August, Quebec’s secularism minister, Jean François Roberge, said that the “proliferation of street prayer is a serious and sensitive issue” and promised to bring legislation to ban it.

That’s why Crosson is urging religious leaders to launch a three-part campaign.

“First, an open letter drafted with legal and faith leaders to show government and the media the real value of the church in Canadian society. Second, mass signatures. We need churches, leaders and individuals to sign the letter,” Crosson says in a video appeal. “And third, a national documentary based on the open letter. This will be released publicly and spread through churches, media and social platforms.”

The Frontier Centre for Public Policy has also come out publicly against the proposed change. A report by Senior Fellow Pierre Gilbert entitled Revoking the Charitable Status for the Advancement of Religion: A Critical Assessment makes a case for the status quo, pointing to benefits such as those mentioned above.

For now, at least, the idea is on hold. A published email response by Liberal MP Karina Gould, the chair of the House of Commons’ Standing Committee on Finance, said the charitable status of faith-driven non-profits will not be revoked in the Nov. 4 budget.

That’s good news. Faith is a big motivator of charity, and it’s hard to see how a less charitable society is a better one. If governments want to balance the books, they should rein in spending, not put faith-based charities at risk.

Lee Harding is a research fellow for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country

Bruce Dowbiggin

Get Ready: Your House May Not Be Yours Much Longer

Published on October 30, 2025

Bruce Dowbiggin

As political scientist Philip Kaufman explains, “If you keep saying you are on stolen land, don’t be surprised when judges give it away to the natives you said you stole it from.”

“At Dodger Stadium on Monday night, singer JP Saxe re-wrote the lyrics of O Canada. The Toronto pop singer swapped the official “our home and native land” for “our home on native land.”

All things considered the land acknowledgement by Saxe (born Jonathan Percy Starker) is pretty tame stuff in today’s climate where some Canadians are suddenly learning they may not own their homes. But like Justin Trudeau washing “genocidal” Canadian laundry at the UN Saxe’s stunt at the Series is just another sign that Canada’s clever folk remain all-in on humiliating themselves in front of the world over reconciliation.

The latest acknowledgements go beyond an off-key pop singer toying with a song lyric. Just ask citizens of Richmond, B.C. which has sent a letter to residents warning that their property may not belong to them. This after a B.C. Supreme Court judge ruled the Vancouver Island First Nation have won back fishing rights and title for part of the land its ancestors used as a summer home in British Columbia’s Lower Mainland— despite opposition by two other Indigenous communities.

The gormless BC NDP government, which brought on the crisis by refusing to legally challenge native demands in the Blueberry River dispute, says it’s monitoring the Richmond file, admitting “owning private property with clear title is key to borrowing for a mortgage, economic certainty, and the real estate market.” But no promises, folks.

Naturally the locals are not amused. One Richmond property owner, who says he’s owned and paid taxes on his home since 1975, has been told by his lender they won’t be renewing his mortgage after First Nations land claim.

The Eby government settlement— called by Bruce Pardy “an existential threat to the future of his own province”— is part of a wave of claims both written and oral gaining momentum across the nation. As we wrote in August, “Among those properties in question is the Vancouver International Airport in Richmond, B.C.. How slick is that? A Carney government that ran on protecting Boomers’ primary residence cashboxes has now managed to put the entire notion of fee simple home ownership at risk.

As blogger Liam Harlow writes, “Indigenous people will now have an unprecedented, parallel title to private property in that area, a legal first of its kind in a court declaration. This title is declared a ‘prior and senior right to land,’ implying a stronger claim, with the court fundamentally asking “what remains of fee simple title after Aboriginal title is recognized in the same lands?”

It doesn’t stop there. Under UNDRIP (United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples) the UN will hold any properties acquired “in trust” for all “aboriginals” as they bicker among themselves for supremacy. Whether Canada’s natives will actually get the land, they will have served as a convenient vehicle for the progressive Left to expand its jurisdiction.

The glass half full on reconciliation holds that Canada’s politicians negotiate a fee with the new native owners to stay on these properties. (Good luck getting a mortgage with the Haida Gwai as co-owners on title.) The glass half empty is your equity goes bye-bye. The decision shocked many earnest Elbows Up types who had no idea their elected governments had fumbled the ball this way.

This is the culmination of decades of federal Liberal acquiescence on the Indigenous file, incompetence highlighted by Trudeau’s pandering visit to a graveyard that contained no alleged murdered babies. Or his refusal to re-open the main rail lines in 2020 when natives blocked the CP tracks.”

Citizens losing their homes in legal disputes should lead every newscast in the nation. Good luck sparking debate on these onrushing crises. As members of the B.C. legislature discovered when they were fired by their party for articulating a few inconvenient facts on reconciliation. The paid-off media, meanwhile, are too obsessed with Trudeau dating celebrity Katy Perry.

The reconciliation fatwa imposed by the Canadian Left powers the ludicrous ongoing spectacle over the Rez School graves. Based on verbal tradition alone, the prime minister of Canada staged pictures with teddy bears when there has never been a murder charge or a family searching for a dead child ever registered in Canada.

Multi-million dollar payouts by the Canadian government to investigate graves produced no evidence of any bodies— mostly because no effort was made. Evidence shows that children in Rez schools might have had a lower mortality rate from TB than those children in their residences. Or even in the general public.

Anyone challenging this reconciliation orthodoxy is fired from teaching positions, expelled from mainline political parties and banned from polite society. No one in Laurentian media seems willing to touch the hot skillet. No wonder polling in 2024 showed 60 percent of Canadians still believe the genocide claim.

Using this blank cheque indigenous radicals demanded land acknowledgements before meetings, political rallies and sports events. To which Woke Canada has caved. A bill in the BC legislature to ban acknowledgements “that deny the sovereignty of the Crown within British Columbia or that attribute collective guilt to individuals based on race, ancestry or the actions of Canadian historical figures” was quashed (88 of 93 MLAs voting no) The MLA behind the bill, Dallas Brodie, was instructed by a fellow PC MLA to get on the “right side of history.”

Meanwhile activists are in classrooms repeating the sanctity of land acknowledgements, ignoring that these lands had turned over many times in tribal warfare. To take just one example, the Comanche used the horse to go from a Canadian tribe to conquering multiple tribes and civilizations across the continent, stealing land and enslaving women and children. But new history mandates that it was their “ancestral” land. The pattern is repeated across North America.

Canadian liberals shrug at this as all just words and theatre. But as political scientist Philip Kaufman explains, “If you keep saying you are on stolen land, don’t be surprised when judges give it away to the natives you said you stole it from.” The BC NDP government’s guilt trip is now producing land claims across the country with warning home owners that, guess what, you may not own your home, either. Like this aboriginal challenge over lands in western Quebec.

There may be better ways to inspire radicalism among normally placid Canadians than kicking people out of homes they’ve bought, but for the moment we can’t think of any. And that’s nothing to sing about.

Bruce Dowbiggin @dowbboy is the editor of Not The Public Broadcaster A two-time winner of the Gemini Award as Canada’s top television sports broadcaster, his new book Deal With It: The Trades That Stunned The NHL And Changed hockey is now available on Amazon. Inexact Science: The Six Most Compelling Draft Years In NHL History, his previous book with his son Evan, was voted the seventh-best professional hockey book of all time by bookauthority.org . His 2004 book Money Players was voted sixth best on the same list, and is available via brucedowbigginbooks.ca.