Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

National

Poilievre can pack a Rally—but can he take on the establishment, China’s influence, and the globalist elite?

Published

9 minute read

The Opposition with Dan Knight

Thousands braved the cold to pack Poilievre’s rally, chanting ‘We need you!’

Pierre Poilievre didn’t just hold a rally. He delivered a political earthquake. Thousands of Canadians braved the cold—minus eleven degrees, snow falling, streets covered in ice—to stand shoulder to shoulder, packed into an overflowing venue, with even more watching from spillover rooms.

And it wasn’t just a polite gathering of voters looking for a fresh face to replace Trudeau’s tired, corrupt regime. No, this was something else entirely. It was a moment where you could feel the momentum shifting. It was the kind of rally that terrifies political elites because it tells them one thing—this isn’t just a campaign anymore. It’s a movement.

Now, we’ve seen this before. Obama in 2008, Trump in 2016. The political class and their media lapdogs always pretend these moments don’t exist—right up until the moment they steamroll the establishment and change the country forever. That’s the kind of energy we saw in Ottawa. That’s the kind of political force Poilievre is sitting on.

And the real question is: does he understand just how big this is? Because right now, he is either going to ride this wave to an unstoppable victory, or he is going to let the media, the bureaucrats, and the Liberal swamp talk him into playing it safe and blowing the biggest opportunity of his life.

Let’s talk about what he got right—because he got a lot right.

First, Mark Carney got absolutely eviscerated. And not a moment too soon. For months, the Liberal establishment and their media servants have been parading this unelected banker around like some kind of messiah—as if Canadians have been crying out for a smug, carbon-tax-obsessed globalist to come and save us from ourselves.

Well, Poilievre wasn’t having it. He torched Carney’s entire phony image in a single speech.

This is a guy—let’s be very clear about who he is—who has spent his entire career making life more expensive for you while getting richer off it. A man who cheered for the carbon tax in Canada while personally investing in American coal. A man who killed pipelines here while his own company bought them in the Middle East. A man who spent years whispering in Trudeau’s ear, pushing policies that have already driven over $500 billion in investment out of this country—and now, somehow, wants you to believe he’s the guy to fix it.

It was devastating, brutal, and completely deserved. And the best part? Poilievre made it clear that if Carney wins, Canada loses.

But that wasn’t even the most important part of the speech.

The most important moment came when Poilievre didn’t just talk about the economy—he talked about Canada’s survival.

Because that’s what this is about.

And this is where Poilievre really flipped the script on the media’s latest nonsense.

For weeks now, Canada’s press has been running around like a bunch of headless chickens, shrieking that Trump’s tariffs are going to destroy us—as if the biggest economic threat to this country isn’t the people running it into the ground from within.

And instead of taking the bait, instead of playing defense, Poilievre turned the entire argument on its head.

The real problem isn’t Trump. The real problem is that Canada can’t even trade with itself.

Think about that. Canada’s biggest economic problem isn’t some tariff threat from Washington—it’s that we have more trade barriers between our own provinces than we do with the United States. That is insane. That is deliberate economic sabotage. That is the kind of bureaucratic lunacy that only a Liberal government could create.

So instead of cowering in fear about what Trump might do, Poilievre did what no Canadian politician has done in decades—he promised to tear down interprovincial trade barriers in his first 30 days in office.

And suddenly, the entire media narrative collapsed.

Why? Because if Canada is so fragile that one American president can destroy our economy with a tariff, then maybe the real problem isn’t Trump. Maybe the real problem is that Liberal policies have left us so pathetically weak that we can’t even function as a country without America’s permission.

Now that’s leadership. That’s the kind of offensive strategy Canada needs.

And then, Poilievre did it again.

He unleashed his strongest energy vision yet.

He vowed to repeal C-69, the anti-pipeline law, within 60 days. He promised to fast-track LNG projects, restart the Ring of Fire mining industry, and put an end to the foreign-funded radical environmentalists who have spent decades deliberately crippling Canada’s energy sector while collecting cash from foreign oil interests.

The crowd exploded. Because Canadians know what’s been done to them.

This country should be an energy powerhouse. Instead, under Liberal rule, we have entire provinces collapsing under green energy scams while we import oil from countries that hate us.

Poilievre knows it. Canadians know it.

And yet, for all the things he got right, there was one glaring failure.

China.

Yes, Poilievre called China a hostile power. Yes, he promised to strengthen Arctic defenses and build a new military base in Iqaluit. That’s good. That’s necessary.

But that’s not enough.

Because Trudeau didn’t just let China threaten Canada from the outside—he let them infiltrate our democracy from the inside.

And that’s where Poilievre should have gone further.

He should have hammered the Houge Inquiry—the investigation into Chinese election interference that was so damaging that Trudeau shut down Parliament to bury it.

He should have exposed how CSIS warned the Liberals about Chinese interference—and they did nothing.

He should have pledged to ban CCP-linked companies from buying Canadian land, businesses, and resources.

He should have said, plainly and directly, that Trudeau’s government was complicit in allowing a foreign dictatorship to interfere in Canada’s democracy.

But he didn’t. And that was a mistake.

Because when you are standing in front of a roaring crowd, a movement waiting for a leader to take the gloves off, that is the moment you go all in.

Poilievre is so close. He has the passion. He has the policies. He has the momentum.

But now, he has to finish the job.

That means stop holding back on China. That means stop treating this like a normal election. That means expose the entire corrupt system—not just Trudeau, but the elites who profit off Canada’s decline.

Because the crowd is ready. The movement is here. The moment is now.

The only question is: is Poilievre ready to go all the way?

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Watch the entire rally here: (Pierre begins to speak at 29:00)

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

Agriculture

Supply Management Is Making Your Christmas Dinner More Expensive

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Conrad Eder

The food may be festive, but the price tag isn’t, and supply management is to blame

With Christmas around the corner, Canadians will be heading to the grocery store to pick up the essentials for a tasty Christmas feast. Milk and eggs to make dinner rolls, butter for creamy mashed potatoes, an assortment of cheeses as an appetizer, and, of course, the Christmas turkey.

All delicious. All essential. And all more expensive than they need to be because of a longstanding government policy. It’s called supply management.

Consider what a family might purchase when hosting Christmas dinner. Two cartons of eggs, two cartons of milk, a couple of blocks of cheese, a few sticks of butter, and an eight-kilogram turkey. According to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Statistics Canada, that basket of goods costs a little less than $80.

Using price premiums calculated in a 2015 University of Manitoba study, Canada’s supply management system is responsible for $16.69 to $20.48 of the cost of that Christmas dinner. That’s a 21 to 26 per cent premium Canadian consumers pay on those five staples alone. Planning on making a yogurt dip or serving ice cream with dessert? Those extra costs continue to climb.

Canadians pay these premiums for poultry, dairy and eggs because of how Canada’s supply management system works. Farmers must obtain government-issued production quotas that dictate how much they’re allowed to produce. Prices are set by government bodies rather than in an open market. High tariffs block imports and restrict competition from international producers.

The costs of supply management are significant, amounting to billions of dollars every year, yet they are largely hidden, spread across millions of households’ grocery bills. Meanwhile, the benefits flow to a small number of quota-holding farmers. Their quotas are worth millions of dollars and help ensure profitable returns.

These farmers have every incentive to lobby, organize and defend the current system. Wanting special protection is one thing. Actually being given it is another. It is the responsibility of elected officials to resist such demands. Elected to represent all Canadians, politicians should unapologetically prioritize the public interest over any special interests.

Yet in June 2025, Parliament did the opposite. Rather than solve a problem that costs Canadians billions each year, members of Parliament from every party, Liberal, Conservative, Bloc, NDP and Green, unanimously approved Bill C-202, further entrenching the system that makes grocery bills more expensive at a time when families can least afford it. Bill C-202 prohibits Canada from offering any further market access concessions on supply-managed sectors in future trade negotiations.

This decision is even more disappointing when we consider what other nations have already accomplished. Australia and New Zealand demonstrate that removing supply management is not only possible but beneficial.

Australia operated a dairy quota system for decades before abolishing it in 2000. New Zealand began dismantling its dairy supply management regime in 1984 and completed the process in 2001. Both countries found that competitive markets provided their citizens with the access to goods they needed without the hidden costs. If these countries could eliminate supply management, so can Canada.

As the government scrambles to combat the rising cost of living, one of the simplest and most effective solutions continues to be ignored. Eliminating supply management. Removing the quotas, the price controls and the tariffs would allow market competition to do what it does across every other product category. It delivers choice, quality and affordability.

As Canadians gather for Christmas dinner, the feast may be delicious, but it will once again be more expensive than it needs to be. That is the cost of supply management, and Canadians should no longer have to bear it.

Conrad Eder is a policy analyst at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Continue Reading

Business

Taxing food is like slapping a surcharge on hunger. It needs to end

Published on

This article supplied by Troy Media.

Troy Media By Sylvain Charlebois

Cutting the food tax is one clear way to ease the cost-of-living crisis for Canadians

About a year ago, Canada experimented with something rare in federal policymaking: a temporary GST holiday on prepared foods.

It was short-lived and poorly communicated, yet Canadians noticed it immediately. One of the most unavoidable expenses in daily life—food—became marginally less costly.

Families felt a modest but genuine reprieve. Restaurants saw a bump in customer traffic. For a brief moment, Canadians experienced what it feels like when government steps back from taxing something as basic as eating.

Then the tax returned with opportunistic pricing, restoring a policy that quietly but reliably makes the cost of living more expensive for everyone.

In many ways, the temporary GST cut was worse than doing nothing. It opened the door for industry to adjust prices upward while consumers were distracted by the tax relief. That dynamic helped push our food inflation rate from minus 0.6 per cent in January to almost four per cent later in the year. By tinkering with taxes rather than addressing the structural flaws in the system, policymakers unintentionally fuelled volatility. Instead of experimenting with temporary fixes, it is time to confront the obvious: Canada should stop taxing food altogether.

Start with grocery stores. Many Canadians believe food is not taxed at retail, but that assumption is wrong. While “basic groceries” are zero-rated, a vast range of everyday food products are taxed, and Canadians now pay over a billion dollars a year in GST/HST on food purchased in grocery stores.

That amount is rising steadily, not because Canadians are buying more treats, but because shrinkflation is quietly pulling more products into taxable categories. A box of granola bars with six bars is tax-exempt, but when manufacturers quietly reduce the box to five bars, it becomes taxable. The product hasn’t changed. The nutritional profile hasn’t changed. Only the packaging has changed, yet the tax flips on.

This pattern now permeates the grocery aisle. A 650-gram bag of chips shrinks to 580 grams and becomes taxable. Muffins once sold in six-packs are reformatted into three-packs or individually wrapped portions, instantly becoming taxable single-serve items. Yogurt, traditionally sold in large tax-exempt tubs, increasingly appears in smaller 100-gram units that meet the definition of taxable snacks. Crackers, cookies, trail mixes and cereals have all seen slight weight reductions that push them past GST thresholds created decades ago. Inflation raises food prices; Canada’s outdated tax code amplifies those increases.

At the same time, grocery inflation remains elevated. Prices are rising at 3.4 per cent, nearly double the overall inflation rate. At a moment when food costs are climbing faster than almost everything else, continuing to tax food—whether on the shelf or in restaurants—makes even less economic sense.

The inconsistencies extend further. A steak purchased at the grocery store carries no tax, yet a breakfast wrap made from virtually the same inputs is taxed at five per cent GST plus applicable HST. The nutritional function is not different. The economic function is not different. But the tax treatment is entirely arbitrary, rooted in outdated distinctions that no longer reflect how Canadians live or work.

Lower-income households disproportionately bear the cost. They spend 6.2 per cent of their income eating outside the home, compared with 3.4 per cent for the highest-income households. When government taxes prepared food, it effectively imposes a higher burden on those often juggling two or three jobs with limited time to cook.

But this is not only about the poorest households. Every Canadian pays more because the tax embeds itself in the price of convenience, time and the realities of modern living.

And there is an overlooked economic dimension: restaurants are one of the most effective tools we have for stimulating community-level economic activity. When people dine out, they don’t just buy food. They participate in the economy. They support jobs for young and lower-income workers. They activate foot traffic in commercial areas. They drive spending in adjacent sectors such as transportation, retail, entertainment and tourism.

A healthy restaurant sector is a signal of economic confidence; it is often the first place consumers re-engage when they feel financially secure. Taxing prepared food, therefore, is not simply a tax on convenience—it is a tax on economic participation.

Restaurants Canada has been calling for the permanent removal of GST/HST on all food, and they are right. Eliminating the tax would generate $5.4 billion in consumer savings annually, create more than 64,000 foodservice jobs, add over 15,000 jobs in related sectors and support the opening of more than 2,600 new restaurants across the country. No other affordability measure available to the federal government delivers this combination of economic stimulus and direct relief.

And Canadians overwhelmingly agree. Eighty-four per cent believe food should not be taxed, regardless of where it is purchased. In a polarized political climate, a consensus of that magnitude is rare.

Ending the GST/HST on all food will not solve every affordability issue but it is one of the simplest, fairest and most effective measures the federal government can take immediately.

Food is food. The tax system should finally accept that.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Canadian professor and researcher in food distribution and policy. He is senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University and co-host of The Food Professor Podcast. He is frequently cited in the media for his insights on food prices, agricultural trends, and the global food supply chain. 

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.

Continue Reading

Trending

X