Unemployment Surges as Trudeau’s Policies Wreak Havoc on the Economy

From The Opposition News Network

Let’s get real, folks. You look around, and it doesn’t take a PhD in economics to know something is seriously wrong. Unemployment’s ticking up to 6.6%, and wages? They’re not even keeping pace with inflation. Canadians are working harder than ever, yet the cost of everything—from the food you put on the table to the roof over your head—is spiraling out of control. And who’s at the wheel of this runaway train? Justin Trudeau, that’s who.

Trudeau’s government has unleashed a storm of reckless policies that are driving inflation through the roof. And what’s their solution? They’ve forced the Bank of Canada into a corner, leaving them with no choice but to keep rates above 4% interest rates at 4.25%. The result? Ordinary Canadians are feeling the squeeze like never before, struggling just to make ends meet. This isn’t some fluke; it’s a direct consequence of Trudeau’s economic mismanagement.

But here’s the kicker. While Canadians are tightening their belts, Trudeau’s government is flooding the country with immigrants, artificially inflating the GDP so they can keep funding their ridiculous green energy fantasies. That’s right. Instead of focusing on real, sustainable economic growth, Trudeau is pushing the numbers with mass immigration to cover up the economic disaster he’s created.

Think about that. You’re paying more for your groceries, your gas, your mortgage—all because Trudeau wants to make his government look good on paper. But it’s you who’s footing the bill.

Housing Crisis? That’s On Trudeau

Why can’t you afford a house anymore? Why are young families, people who grew up in this country, completely locked out of the housing market? The answer is simple—*it’s Justin Trudeau’s fault*.

Let’s be clear. The Bank of Canada has openly admitted that the housing crisis is a result of excess demand. But here’s what they’re not shouting from the rooftops: *that demand isn’t homegrown*. Trudeau’s open-door immigration policy has flooded the market, pushing housing prices through the roof. He’s not bringing in record numbers of immigrants because it’s good for Canada; he’s doing it to boost GDP artificially. The problem? That so-called “growth” is driving Canadians out of their own housing market.

You’ve got ordinary Canadians, people who’ve worked their whole lives, now completely priced out of homeownership because Trudeau has cranked up demand with his immigration policies. And while he’s busy making his numbers look good, you’re the one left without a chance to buy a home.

And what’s the solution Trudeau offers? Higher interest rates. That’s right. The Bank of Canada has been forced to keep rates above 4% (4.25%) just to cool down the mess Trudeau created. So now, not only are you dealing with sky-high prices, but the higher interest rates mean if you do somehow scrape together enough to buy a house, you’re stuck with a mortgage you can’t afford.

This isn’t just incompetence. It’s a deliberate strategy by Trudeau to artificially inflate the economy through immigration, all while making life harder for the average Canadian. This is the Trudeau legacy: inflated numbers on paper, while regular Canadians suffer in reality.

The Reality of Trudeau’s Policies

Everything costs more under Trudeau—everything. From your grocery bill to your taxes, life has gotten more expensive. But let’s not pretend this is some random economic downturn. This is the result of deliberate policies designed to make Trudeau look like he’s growing the economy. In reality, he’s burning through taxpayer dollars, and making life harder for the people who are actually *keeping this country going*—you.

And here’s the worst part: it’s not going to get better. As long as Trudeau is in charge, you’re going to keep seeing rising costs, more immigration to mask the economic stagnation, and higher interest rates making it impossible for Canadians to get ahead.

It’s time to stop pretending this is some unavoidable consequence of global forces. This is Justin Trudeau’s Canada, and the reality is, you’re being priced out of your own country.

Why Everything Costs More

Here’s the ugly truth: under Trudeau, everything costs more—much more. Groceries? Skyrocketing. Taxes? You can barely keep track of how many you’re paying. Energy bills? Forget it. These price hikes aren’t a coincidence—they’re a direct result of Trudeau’s reckless economic policies. This isn’t an accident; it’s the result of a deliberate plan to reshape Canada’s economy into some kind of climate-change fantasyland, and you’re the one paying for it.

Trudeau’s inflation problem started with his wild spending. The government kept printing and spending money, and soon enough, we had 8.1% inflation. While they love to pat themselves on the back for bringing it down to 2.5%, the reality is prices aren’t coming down. Groceries are still unaffordable. You’re paying 15-20% more for the basics like meat, vegetables, and even milk. Your wallet hasn’t seen any relief, despite their so-called victory lap.

Now, let’s talk about energy. Trudeau’s green energy agenda is a black hole sucking up billions in taxpayer dollars. Billions spent on unproven clean tech projects, and yet, have you seen your energy bills drop? Of course not. They’ve gone up. The kicker is, while Trudeau spends your money on windmills and electric buses that no one can afford, your gas and heating bills have soared. You’re being told to tighten your belt, but the government is lighting taxpayer dollars on fire.

Oh, and don’t forget taxes. Every time you turn around, there’s a new tax or an increase to an existing one. Carbon taxes, fuel taxes—everything is designed to make life more expensive. You’re paying more at the pump because of Trudeau’s so-called climate policies. Every single tax increase hits the working-class Canadian, the family just trying to get by. Meanwhile, Justin and his globalist buddies are laughing all the way to their next climate summit in a private jet.

A Trump Factor to Watch

And if you think this is bad, just wait. If Donald Trump wins re-election, Trudeau’s green pipe dream might come crashing down. Trump has promised to roll back Biden’s climate change initiatives. No more wind farms, no more billions funneled into solar power plants that never seem to get built. If Trump dismantles these climate policies, Trudeau’s entire green energy house of cards falls apart. Canada is deeply tied to U.S. climate cooperation—without it, Trudeau is left holding an empty bag. And what happens then? *You* will pay the price again as the government scrambles to find another way to fund their utopian schemes.

But it’s not just Trudeau’s climate pipe dreams that Trump could affect. Trump has been crystal clear—he’s bringing back tariffs, and Canada’s already weak GDP will take another hit. With Trudeau’s economic mismanagement, we can’t afford to take another blow. If Trump slams down new tariffs on Canadian goods, we’re looking at fewer jobs, higher prices, and an even deeper recession. Trudeau has left Canada exposed, and we’re the ones who will suffer for it.

Trudeau’s Legacy: Pain for the Average Canadian

Let’s face it—Trudeau’s legacy is one of pain for the average Canadian. He’s bloated the government, jacked up immigration numbers to artificially inflate GDP, and used that growth to justify even more spending. But who’s benefiting? Not you. Wages are stagnant, while the cost of living has gone through the roof. Why? Because the demand for everything from housing to groceries is being driven by immigration policies that Trudeau is using to fund his agenda. This isn’t about building a better Canada; it’s about maintaining the illusion of growth by bringing in more people to mask his economic failures.

Why can’t you buy a house? Because Trudeau’s open-door immigration policy has created an artificial demand for housing that has nothing to do with Canadians. The Bank of Canada has admitted it—excess demand is driving up housing costs. But here’s the kicker: this demand isn’t from Canadians trying to buy their first home. It’s from a government that’s using immigration as a crutch for economic growth that doesn’t actually exist. Meanwhile, you, the hard-working Canadian, are priced out of the market. You’re paying more, and Trudeau doesn’t care.

From taxes to groceries to housing, everything costs more under Justin Trudeau. And it’s all part of a grand scheme to push his climate agenda while using *your* hard-earned money to do it. So the next time you see your grocery bill or try to pay your heating bill, remember: this is the Canada Justin Trudeau built. How much longer can Canadians endure this? How much more can you take?

Please subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Related Topics:#DanKnight #HousingCrisis #Inflation #InterestRates #JustinTrudeau #TheOppositionNewsNetwork TrudeauPolicies UnemploymentSurges

Up Next

Toronto-area Catholic school hid ‘trans’ identity of 10-year-old girl from her parents

Don't Miss

B.C. addiction centre should not accept drug industry funds

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

In his own words: Stunning Climate Change pivot from Bill Gates. Poverty and disease should be top concern.

Business / 6 hours ago

Clean energy transition price tag over $150 billion and climbing, with very little to show for it

Addictions / 7 hours ago

The Shaky Science Behind Harm Reduction and Pediatric Gender Medicine

Business

Clean energy transition price tag over $150 billion and climbing, with very little to show for it

Published on November 1, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss, Julio Mejía, Elmira Aliakbari, Karen Graham and Jock Finlayson

Ottawa and the four biggest provinces have spent (or foregone revenues) of at least $158 billion to create at most 68,000 “clean” jobs since 2014

Despite the hype of a “clean” economic transition, governments in Ottawa and in the four largest provinces have spent or foregone revenues of more than $150 billion (inflation-adjusted) on low-carbon initiatives since 2014/15, but have only created, at best, 68,000 clean jobs, according to two new studies published by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.

“Governments, activists and special interest groups have been making a lot of claims about the opportunities of a clean economic transition, but after a decade of policy interventions and more than $150 billion in taxpayers’ money, the results are
extremely underwhelming,” said Elmira Aliakbari, director of natural resource studies and co-author of The Fiscal Cost of Canada’s Low-Carbon Economy.

The study finds that since 2014/15, the federal government and provincial governments in the country’s four largest provinces (Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia) combined have spent and foregone revenues of $158 billion (inflation adjusted to 2024 dollars) trying to create clean jobs, as defined by Statistics Canada’s Environmental and Clean Technology Products Economic Account.

Importantly, that cost estimate is conservative since it does not account for an exhaustive list of direct government spending and it does not measure the costs from Canada’s other six provinces, municipalities, regulatory costs and other economic
costs because of the low-carbon spending and tax credits.

A second study, Sizing Canada’s Clean Economy, finds that there was very little change over the 2014 to 2023 period in terms of the share of the total economy represented by the clean economy. For instance, in 2014, the clean economy represented 3.1 per cent of GDP compared to 3.6 per cent in 2023.

“The evidence is clear—the much-hyped clean economic transition has failed to fundamentally transform Canada’s $3.3 trillion economy,” said study co-author and Fraser Institute senior fellow Jock Finlayson.

State of the Green Economy

The Fiscal Cost of Canada’s Low-Carbon Economy documents spending initiatives by the federal government and the governments of Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta, and Quebec since 2014 to promote the low-carbon economy, as well as how much revenue they have foregone through offering tax credits.
Overall, the combined cost of spending and tax credits supporting a low-carbon economy by the federal government and the four provincial governments is estimated at $143.6 billion from 2014–15 to 2024–25, in nominal terms. When adjusted for inflation, the total reaches $158 billion in 2024 dollars.
These estimates are based on very conservative assumptions, and they do not cover every program area or government-controlled expenditure related to the low-carbon economy and/or reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Sizing Canada’s Green Economy assesses the composition, growth, share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) output, and employment of Canada’s “clean economy” from 2014 to 2023.
Canada’s various environmental and clean technology industries collectively have accounted for between 3.07% and 3.62% of all-industry GDP over the 10-year period from 2014 to 2023. While it has grown, the sector as a whole has not been expanding at a pace that meaningfully exceeds the growth of the overall Canadian economy, despite significant policy attention and mounting public subsidies.
The clean economy represents a respectable and relatively stable share of Canada’s $3.3 trillion economy. However, it remains a small part of Canada’s broader industrial mix, it is not a major source of export earnings, and it is not about to supplant the many other industries that underpin the country’s prosperity and dominate its international exports.

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Julio Mejía

Policy Analyst

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute

Karen Graham

Jock Finlayson

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute

Addictions

The Shaky Science Behind Harm Reduction and Pediatric Gender Medicine

Published on November 1, 2025

Todayville

By Adam Zivo

Both are shaped by radical LGBTQ activism and questionable evidence.

Over the past decade, North America embraced two disastrous public health movements: pediatric gender medicine and “harm reduction” for drug use. Though seemingly unrelated, these movements are actually ideological siblings. Both were profoundly shaped by extremist LGBTQ activism, and both have produced grievous harms by prioritizing ideology over high-quality scientific evidence.

While harm reductionists are known today for championing interventions that supposedly minimize the negative effects of drug consumption, their movement has always been connected to radical “queer” activism. This alliance began during the 1980s AIDS crisis, when some LGBTQ activists, hoping to reduce HIV infections, partnered with addicts and drug-reform advocates to run underground needle exchanges.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe to The Bureau

In the early 2000s, after the North American AIDS epidemic was brought under control, many HIV organizations maintained their relevance (and funding) by pivoting to addiction issues. Despite having no background in addiction medicine, their experience with drug users in the context of infectious diseases helped them position themselves as domain experts.

These organizations tended to conceptualize addiction as an incurable infection—akin to AIDS or Hepatitis C—and as a permanent disability. They were heavily staffed by progressives who, influenced by radical theory, saw addicts as a persecuted minority group. According to them, drug use itself was not the real problem—only society’s “moralizing” norms.

These factors drove many HIV organizations to lobby aggressively for harm reduction at the expense of recovery-oriented care. Their efforts proved highly successful in Canada, where I am based, as HIV researchers were a driving force behind the implementation of supervised consumption sites and “safer supply” (free, government-supplied recreational drugs for addicts).

From the 2010s onward, the association between harm reductionism and queer radicalism only strengthened, thanks to the popularization of “intersectional” social justice activism that emphasized overlapping forms of societal oppression. Progressive advocates demanded that “marginalized” groups, including drug addicts and the LGBTQ community, show enthusiastic solidarity with one another.

These two activist camps sometimes worked on the same issues. For example, the gay community is struggling with a silent epidemic of “chemsex” (a dangerous combination of drugs and anonymous sex), which harm reductionists and queer theorists collaboratively whitewash as a “life-affirming cultural practice” that fosters “belonging.”

For the most part, though, the alliance has been characterized by shared tones and tactics—and bad epistemology. Both groups deploy politicized, low-quality research produced by ideologically driven activist-researchers. The “evidence-base” for pediatric gender medicine, for example, consists of a large number of methodologically weak studies. These often use small, non-representative samples to justify specious claims about positive outcomes. Similarly, harm reduction researchers regularly conduct semi-structured interviews with small groups of drug users. Ignoring obvious limitations, they treat this testimony as objective evidence that pro-drug policies work or are desirable.

Gender clinicians and harm reductionists are also averse to politically inconvenient data. Gender clinicians have failed to track long-term patient outcomes for medically transitioned children. In some cases, they have shunned detransitioners and excluded them from their research. Harm reductionists have conspicuously ignored the input of former addicts, who generally oppose laissez-faire drug policies, and of non-addict community members who live near harm-reduction sites.

Both fields have inflated the benefits of their interventions while concealing grievous harms. Many vulnerable children, whose gender dysphoria otherwise might have resolved naturally, were chemically castrated and given unnecessary surgeries. In parallel, supervised consumption sites and “safer supply” entrenched addiction, normalized public drug use, flooded communities with opioids, and worsened public disorder—all without saving lives.

In both domains, some experts warned about poor research practices and unmeasured harms but were silenced by activists and ideologically captured institutions. In 2015, one of Canada’s leading sexologists, Kenneth Zucker, was fired from the gender clinic he had led for decades because he opposed automatically affirming young trans-identifying patients. Analogously, dozens of Canadian health-care professionals have told me that they feared publicly criticizing aspects of the harm-reduction movement. They thought doing so could invite activist harassment while jeopardizing their jobs and grants.

By bullying critics into silence, radical activists manufactured false consensus around their projects. The harm reductionists insist, against the evidence, that safer supply saves lives. Their idea of “evidence-based policymaking” amounts to giving addicts whatever they ask for. “The science is settled!” shout the supporters of pediatric gender medicine, though several systematic reviews proved it was not.

Both movements have faced a backlash in recent years. Jurisdictions throughout the world are, thankfully, curtailing irreversible medical procedures for gender-confused youth and shifting toward a psychotherapy-based “wait and see” approach. Drug decriminalization and safer supply are mostly dead in North America and have been increasingly disavowed by once-supportive political leaders.

Harm reductionists and queer activists are trying to salvage their broken experiments, occasionally by drawing explicit parallels between their twin movements. A 2025 paper published in the International Journal of Drug Policy, for example, asserts that “efforts to control, repress, and punish drug use and queer and trans existence are rising as right-wing extremism becomes increasingly mainstream.” As such, there is an urgent need to “cultivate shared solidarity and action . . . whether by attending protests, contacting elected officials, or vocally defending these groups in hostile spaces.”

How should critics respond? They should agree with their opponents that these two radical movements are linked—and emphasize that this is, in fact, a bad thing. Large swathes of the public understand that chemically and surgically altering vulnerable children is harmful, and that addicts shouldn’t be allowed to commandeer public spaces. Helping more people grasp why these phenomena arose concurrently could help consolidate public support for reform and facilitate a return to more restrained policies.

Adam Zivo is director of the Canadian Centre for Responsible Drug Policy.

[This article was originally published in City Journal, a public policy magazine and website published by the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research]

Subscribe to The Bureau.

For the full experience, please upgrade your subscription and support a public interest startup.

We break international stories and this requires elite expertise, time and legal costs.