Connect with us

National

Justin Trudeau Resigns as Prime Minister

Published

15 minute read

The Opposition with Dan Knight

Amid scandals, internal dissent, and economic mismanagement, Trudeau steps down after nearly a decade in power, triggering a leadership race and questions about his legacy

Justin Trudeau has finally called it quits, but let’s not pretend it was on his terms. After nearly a decade of virtue-signaling, reckless spending, and scandals so frequent they could be a Netflix series, Trudeau announced his resignation in a press conference dripping with self-pity and self-praise. But let’s cut through the melodrama: Trudeau isn’t resigning out of some noble desire to “reset” Canadian politics. He’s running for the hills, leaving behind a Liberal Party in chaos, a country divided, and a fiscal crisis that would make any economist break into a cold sweat.

To make his exit smoother—and less humiliating—Trudeau has cooked up one final trick to save his party from immediate disaster. He’s proroguing Parliament until March 24th, giving the Liberals time to select a new leader while avoiding a vote of no confidence that every opposition leader is salivating over. The Conservatives, NDP, and Bloc are all chomping at the bit to hold Trudeau’s government accountable for its incompetence, scandals, and economic mismanagement. And who can blame them? The Liberal government has been teetering on the edge of collapse for months, paralyzed not by opposition obstruction, as Trudeau claims, but by its own refusal to release critical documents on multiple corruption scandals. Trudeau’s prorogation stunt isn’t about giving Canada a “fresh start”—it’s about running out the clock to save his party from political obliteration.

According to Trudeau, he’s stepping down because Parliament has been “paralyzed” by polarization. That’s rich. The truth is, Parliament hasn’t been paralyzed by some abstract cultural divide. It’s been paralyzed by Trudeau’s government refusing to release critical documents about scandal after scandal. Whether it’s the “Green Slush Fund,” where taxpayer dollars were funneled to companies tied to Liberal insiders, or the endless dodging around the Auditor General’s damning reports, Trudeau’s government has been allergic to accountability. Opposition parties haven’t obstructed Parliament—they’ve been doing their job, demanding transparency. But Trudeau, ever the master deflector, wants you to believe it’s all just partisan bickering.

And let’s not forget the real catalyst for this resignation: Chrystia Freeland’s departure. Trudeau would have you think they parted on amicable terms, with him heaping praise on her as a “political partner.” The reality? Freeland’s resignation letter all but called him out for fiscal irresponsibility. She didn’t leave because of some grand philosophical difference with Trudeau. She bailed because she was left holding the bag for his government’s staggering $64 billion overspending scandal.

Freeland, as Finance Minister, was supposed to break the bad news to Canadians, delivering the grim truth about how the Trudeau government had torched billions on pet projects, virtue-signaling initiatives, and bloated programs under the guise of “building back better.” But when she got wind that Mark Carney—the darling of the globalist elite—was being tapped as her eventual replacement, her calculus shifted. Why should she be Trudeau’s scapegoat, taking the fall for his disastrous economic management, when she could jump ship and salvage her political reputation?

So, she bolted, leaving Trudeau scrambling to spin her departure as amicable, even noble. The truth is far less flattering. Freeland wasn’t some hero standing up to Trudeau’s fiscal insanity; she was an opportunist who saw the writing on the wall and decided to save herself. Her timing says it all. Trudeau was ready to throw her under the bus, make her the face of his government’s economic collapse, and Freeland, ever the political survivor, wasn’t about to go down with the ship.

In the end, Trudeau and Freeland are two sides of the same coin. One ran Canada’s economy into the ground while insisting it was all for the greater good, and the other bailed the moment she saw an opportunity to escape the consequences. Trudeau’s resignation and Freeland’s exit don’t mark the end of an era—they mark the unraveling of a failed administration that has left Canada worse off than it was a decade ago.

But it doesn’t end there because Justin Trudeau’s resignation wasn’t just an end to his tenure—it was a ghost story. Lurking in the background of his carefully choreographed farewell was the unmistakable shadow of Stephen Harper, the former Conservative Prime Minister Trudeau loved to blame for just about everything. Even as he stepped down, Trudeau couldn’t resist invoking the specter of his political nemesis, indirectly justifying his decision to prorogue Parliament by comparing it to Harper’s 2008 decision to do the same.

Trudeau attempted to spin his prorogation as necessary, claiming Parliament had been paralyzed by obstruction and filibustering. But anyone paying attention knows that Trudeau’s move was about avoiding immediate accountability. Facing confidence votes in a chaotic minority government, with scandals piling up and his party splintering, Trudeau needed an out. And who better to use as cover than Harper, the so-called architect of prorogation?

But here’s the irony Trudeau can’t escape: while he used to condemn Harper’s leadership style as cynical and divisive, his own legacy isn’t much different. Harper prorogued Parliament to avoid a confidence vote he was likely to lose, a move that Trudeau’s Liberals once decried as undemocratic. Yet here we are, with Trudeau proroguing Parliament not to “reset” anything, but to buy his party time to regroup while avoiding a vote that could collapse his government.

Trudeau’s comparisons to Harper don’t stop there. Harper governed during a time of economic challenge and left behind a reputation for fiscal conservatism. Trudeau, on the other hand, presided over the largest spending spree in Canadian history, resulting in ballooning deficits and rising inflation. But as Trudeau exits, what’s striking isn’t how different he is from Harper—it’s how much he’s been defined by him. Harper’s economic competence looms large over Trudeau’s fiscal recklessness. The ghost of Harper isn’t just haunting Trudeau’s resignation—it’s casting a long shadow over his legacy.

Even in his final moments as Prime Minister, Trudeau’s insecurities about Harper were on full display. By proroguing Parliament and framing his exit as a principled move to “cool tensions,” Trudeau essentially admitted he couldn’t handle the same parliamentary pressures Harper navigated with ease. In the end, Trudeau wasn’t escaping Harper’s legacy; he was living in it. His inability to outrun that ghost may be one of the most revealing aspects of his resignation.

The sad part here folks is that Trudeau’s press conference wasn’t just self-serving—it was a masterpiece of revisionist history. He bragged about reducing poverty and helping families, but here’s what he left out: food bank visits in Canada hit over 2 million in March 2024, a 90% increase since 2019. Housing costs are through the roof, inflation is crushing families, and his beloved carbon tax has made basic necessities even more expensive. Sure, he’ll point to child poverty stats that improved thanks to government handouts, but the broader picture shows a nation where economic insecurity is the new normal. That’s not a success story—it’s a disaster.

And then there was the inevitable swipe at Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative leader who’s been eating Trudeau’s lunch on the political stage. Trudeau called Poilievre’s vision “wrongheaded” and accused him of wanting to abandon climate change initiatives and attack journalists. Translation: Poilievre has been relentless in exposing Trudeau’s failures, and Trudeau doesn’t like it. Canadians don’t care about your climate summits and woke talking points, Justin—they care about being able to afford groceries and pay their rent. That’s why Poilievre is surging, and why Trudeau is getting out before he faces electoral humiliation.

Of course, Trudeau tried to paint his departure as some grand act of self-awareness. He claimed, “If I’m having to fight internal battles, I cannot be the best option in the next election.” How noble! Except those “internal battles” are the direct result of his own arrogance and incompetence. His party is in shambles, his government is mired in scandal, and he knows he can’t beat Poilievre. This isn’t a gracious exit—it’s a calculated retreat.

So what’s next for Canada? Justin Trudeau’s resignation sets the stage for a Liberal leadership race that will be as chaotic and cynical as his entire tenure. Whoever steps up will inherit not just a fractured party, but a country battered by division, corruption, and fiscal mismanagement. The swamp Trudeau cultivated—the elites, insiders, and bureaucrats who thrived under his reckless governance—will scramble to maintain control, ensuring their grip on power even as Canadians demand real change. But this time, the people might not be so easily fooled.

Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives are ready to step in with a message that cuts through the noise: affordability, accountability, and putting Canadians first. They’re tapping into the frustration of a country that’s tired of being lectured by a Prime Minister who spent more time virtue-signaling on the world stage than solving the real issues facing Canadians at home. Families struggling to pay for groceries, veterans waiting for basic services, and Indigenous communities still boiling water don’t want more of the same—they want a government that works for them. Trudeau saw the writing on the wall, and he ran.

Justin Trudeau leaves office cloaked in the same smug self-congratulation that defined his years in power. He’ll undoubtedly retreat to cozy speaking circuits and elite gatherings, spinning his tenure as a tale of progress and leadership. But Canadians won’t forget. They won’t forget the skyrocketing cost of living, the erosion of free speech, the scandals swept under the rug, or the divide-and-conquer tactics he used to cling to power. Trudeau governed not for the people, but for the swamp—a cadre of insiders, globalists, and bureaucratic elites who put their interests above those of ordinary Canadians.

This resignation isn’t a reset—it’s a retreat. Trudeau knows the Liberals can’t win under his leadership, so he’s abandoning ship, leaving the mess for someone else to clean up. But the Canadian people are waking up. They see through the empty promises and self-serving platitudes. They’re ready to drain the swamp and restore a government that respects their values, their freedom, and their future.

Trudeau’s resignation isn’t the end of a chapter; it’s the start of a fight. The fight to reclaim Canada from the grasp of a corrupt and unaccountable elite. The fight to put the interests of hardworking Canadians ahead of the woke agenda. The fight to restore pride, prosperity, and unity in a country that deserves so much better than the mess Justin Trudeau is leaving behind. Canada is ready for real leadership. And the swamp should be very, very afraid.

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

MEI-Ipsos poll: 56 per cent of Canadians support increasing access to non-governmental healthcare providers

Published on

 

  • Most believe private providers can deliver services faster than government-run hospitals

  • 77 per cent of Canadians say their provincial healthcare system is too bureaucratic

Canadians are increasingly in favour of breaking the government monopoly over health care by opening the door to independent providers and cross-border treatments, an MEI-Ipsos poll has revealed.

“Canadians from coast to coast are signalling they want to see more involvement from independent health providers in our health system,” explains Emmanuelle B. Faubert, economist at the MEI. “They understand that universal access doesn’t mean government-run, and that consistent failures to deliver timely care in government hospitals are a feature of the current system.”

Support for independent health care is on the rise, with 56 per cent of respondents in favour of allowing patients to access services provided by independent health entrepreneurs. Only 25 per cent oppose this.

In Quebec, support is especially strong, with 68 per cent endorsing this change.

Favourable views of accessing care through a mixed system are widespread, with three quarters of respondents stating that private entrepreneurs can deliver healthcare services faster than hospitals managed by the government. This is up four percentage points from last year.

Countries like Sweden and France combine universal coverage with independent providers and deliver faster, more accessible care. When informed about how these health systems run, nearly two in three Canadians favour adopting such models.

The poll also finds that 73 per cent of Canadians support allowing patients to receive treatment abroad with provincial coverage, which could help reduce long wait times at home.

Common in the European Union, this “cross-border directive” enabled 450,000 patients to access elective surgeries in 2022, with costs reimbursed as if they had been treated in their home country.

There’s a growing consensus that provincial healthcare systems are overly bureaucratic, with the strongest agreement in Alberta, B.C., and Quebec. The proportion of Canadians holding this view has risen by 16 percentage points since 2020.

Nor do Canadians see more spending as being a solution: over half say the current pace of healthcare spending in their province is unsustainable.

“Governments shouldn’t keep doubling down on what isn’t working. Instead, they should look at what works abroad,” says Ms. Faubert. “Canadians have made it clear they want to shift gears; now it’s up to policymakers to show they’re listening.”

A sample of 1,164 Canadians aged 18 and older was polled between March 24th and March 28th, 2025. The margin of error is ±3.3 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

The results of the MEI-Ipsos poll are available here.

* * *

The MEI is an independent public policy think tank with offices in Montreal, Ottawa, and Calgary. Through its publications, media appearances, and advisory services to policymakers, the MEI stimulates public policy debate and reforms based on sound economics and entrepreneurship.

Continue Reading

2025 Federal Election

POLL: Canadians say industrial carbon tax makes life more expensive

Published on

By Franco Terrazzano

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation released Leger polling showing 70 per cent of Canadians believe businesses pass on most or some of the cost of the industrial carbon tax to consumers. Meanwhile, just nine per cent believe businesses pay most of the cost.

“The poll shows Canadians understand that a carbon tax on business is a carbon tax on Canadians that makes life more expensive,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “Only nine per cent of Canadians believe Liberal Leader Mark Carney’s claim that businesses will pay most of the cost of his carbon tax.

“Canadians have a simple question for Carney: How much will your carbon tax cost?”

The federal government currently imposes an industrial carbon tax on oil and gas, steel and fertilizer businesses, among others.

Carney said he would “improve and tighten” the industrial carbon tax and extend the “framework to 2035.” Carney also said that by “changing the carbon tax … We are making the large companies pay for everybody.”

The Leger poll asked Canadians who they think ultimately pays the industrial carbon tax. Results of the poll show:

  • 44 per cent say most of the cost is passed on to consumers
  • 26 per cent say some of the cost is passed on to consumers
  • 9 per cent say businesses pay most of the cost
  • 21 per cent don’t know

Among those decided on the issue, 89 per cent of Canadians say businesses pass on most or some of the cost to consumers.

“Carbon taxes on refineries make gas more expensive, carbon taxes on utilities make home heating more expensive and carbon taxes on fertilizer plants increase costs for farmers and that makes groceries more expensive,” Terrazzano said. “A carbon tax on business will push our entrepreneurs to cut production in Canada and increase production south of the border and that means higher prices and fewer jobs for Canadians.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X