National
Trudeau clinging like a ‘low-key autocrat’: Jeremy Nuttall
By Jeremy Nuttall
Is Canada looking like a developing nation with a corruption problem and a soft authoritarian regime?
This isn’t normal. Not even close. Even the most eccentric of Prime Ministers in any other commonwealth country would likely be licking their wounds in Ibiza by now, watching the chaos unfold from a safe distance.
Not this Prime Minister. True to form as the head of a micromanaging Prime Minister’s Office, he couldn’t bring himself to step aside. In fact, he still hasn’t.
Trudeau’s stubbornness edges dangerously close to the behavior of a low-key autocrat. He was nowhere to be seen for days as he shrugged off demands to “get lost in the snow.”
Imagine a country with a leader so deeply unpopular within his own party that members, mostly speaking anonymously out of fear, pressured him for months to step down—only for him to deflect with vague promises of “reflection” whenever the pressure mounted.
Imagine that happening against the background of the leader refusing to release documents as ordered by Parliament, at the same time the political landscape is embroiled in a foreign interference scandal. Meanwhile, food bank usage has surged, and concerns over soaring housing costs continue to grow.
Then, after a top minister leaves and drives a stake through his government, that leader circles his most loyal comrades in a bid to fend off the resignation even more before finally admitting defeat.
But even then, after the admission, said leader is still in charge and only promising to resign fully once his successor is chosen, then stopping the work of government at one of the most crucial times in recent history to give himself and his party time to get their affairs in order.
If you had that explained to you without knowing it was Canada, would you think it was a western parliamentary democracy being described, or a developing nation with a corruption problem and a soft authoritarian regime?
Democracies aren’t meant to prioritize the personal interests of government members over the country’s welfare. Yet that’s exactly what Trudeau did by requesting the prorogation of Parliament, giving his Liberals time to strategize for their own political survival.
Meanwhile, for the first few months of a new U.S. administration threatening major tariffs, Canada will be limited in its ability to address whatever happens in the House. With so much at stake, this move seems almost vindictive to a Canadian public who are now rejecting Liberal leadership.
Governor General Mary Simon’s decision to allow this—and the time she took to consider it—deserves scrutiny. The public is owed an explanation.
The Liberal Party’s troubles are not the Canadian public’s troubles, but in proroguing Parliament to deal with them, the Liberals have made them such.
Trudeau’s plan for the country is incoherent, his ministers suddenly have a lot of family obligations, and even columnists who curiously supported him for years too long are now calling for his exit.
Additionally, with him waiting until the Liberals are at their most unpopular ever, the Conservatives—set to win in a landslide no matter what—can control the narrative of the election and claim to have won on any mandate they see fit. The public could be left out of the conversation.
When tallied up, it’s all so awful.
In reality, however abnormal this is, it’s the natural course of where Canadians have allowed their country to end up.
Years of not really getting that upset about anything or realizing that the government and what it does matters are starting to show the real harms a country can be haunted by when it shrugs off the chipping away of its democratic norms by shallow and venal political operatives.
As pressure mounted on Trudeau to resign, his own MPs sheepishly asked for him to step down, an illustration that the PMO holds far too much power over caucus. One was left wondering if a breaking point would happen and MPs would make a grand gesture on behalf of Canadians.
Such a climax never arrived. My incredibly small kingdom for a handful of Liberal MPs with cojones.
The really sad part is, so far, it seems Liberal MPs missed a chance to turn the tide and more forcefully oust Trudeau from the leadership role by any means necessary, even if it meant voting against their own party.
They could have sent a message that democracy is a cumulative effort, not the whims of one person, then followed it up with reasonable changes to party policy to allow for the removal of a leader should such circumstances occur again.
What this has done is set a new low bar. The next power-crazed PMO will have this one as a blueprint to disregard the public and its welfare before pushing the limit even further.
The only bar lower at this point would be if Trudeau goes back on his promise to resign. Yes, it’s a long shot, but considering this guy’s track record of keeping promises—right up there with an absentee father in a daytime drama—I’ll really believe he’s gone when he’s gone.
This is a moment Canadians really need to examine and question if the way their government has been operating is working for them. If it isn’t, a movement for change must spring up.
Dignity, tradition, integrity, the common good—all of these principles risk becoming meaningless unless Canadians begin to take them seriously.
The Bureau is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
From LifeSiteNews
This is all very amusing, but it poses a problem for the Conservative Party.
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 @NDP now apparently classifies its executive members in two categories: (1) NON-MALE, and (2) MALE pic.twitter.com/0S8Kq4kbRx
— Jonathan Kay (@jonkay) October 25, 2025
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.
From LifeSiteNews
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.
In particular, Barrett’s motion asks about Carney’s connections to the Brookfield Corporation.
“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.
From Underdog to Top Broodmare
Trans Mountain executive says it’s time to fix the system, expand access, and think like a nation builder
Trump Admin Establishing Council To Make Buildings Beautiful Again
B.C. would benefit from new pipeline but bad policy stands in the way
Churches Are All That Stands Between Canada And Tyranny
Top Scientists Deliberately Misrepresented Sea Level Rise For Years
CAPP calls on federal government to reset energy policy before it’s too late
-
Business2 days ago
Trans Mountain executive says it’s time to fix the system, expand access, and think like a nation builder
-
Addictions2 days agoThe Shaky Science Behind Harm Reduction and Pediatric Gender Medicine
-
Business2 days agoClean energy transition price tag over $150 billion and climbing, with very little to show for it
-
International1 day agoStrongest hurricane in 174 years makes landfall in Jamaica
-
Business2 days agoFlying saucers, crystal paperweights and branded apples: inside the feds’ promotional merch splurge
-
Business2 days agoCanada’s combative trade tactics are backfiring
-
International2 days agoBiden’s Autopen Orders declared “null and void”
-
MAiD1 day agoStudy promotes liver transplants from Canadian euthanasia victims