Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Politics

Poilievre chastises Trudeau for dealing with inflation like a ‘pyromaniac promising to fight a fire’

Published

4 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

At a Fix the Budget rally, the Conservative Party leader made three demands ahead of the 2024 budget release.

Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) leader Pierre Poilievre criticized Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s pledge to combat sky-high inflation in a strong rebuke of the handling of the nation’s economy.

“Justin Trudeau promising to fight inflation is like a pyromaniac promising to fight a fire,” Poilievre said Sunday during a “Fix the Budget” rally at a truck depot in Mississauga, Ontario.

“He’s the one that lit the fire with his taxes and his deficits.”

Poilievre noted that “every day” Trudeau is seen in planned “photo ops,” saying that many Canadians “know the money that he’s spitting out of his mouth is money that will come out of your pocket, just like it has for the last eight years.”

The CPC leader said during the rally that his party has three demands for Trudeau concerning his upcoming 2024 budget, which is set to be released on April 16.

“Ax the Trudeau tax on food and farmers; two, build homes, not bureaucracies; and three, cap the spending with a dollar-for-dollar law to bring down inflation and interest rates,” Poilievre said.

Poilievre also mentioned that he wants the Trudeau government to take away the tax on food and farmers via Bill C-234, which, if passed, would take away the carbon tax on farmers, their barns, and fuel they use to dry grain.

The bill would amend the current Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act to take the carbon tax off farmers, barns, and drying, which Poilievre said will provide food price relief to Canadians.

Poilievre also said he wants the federal government to bring in a “dollar-for-dollar” law that would help to lower high interest rates, which contributes to inflation.

“We’ll bring that money home and invest it in our military,” he said.

Poilievre also accused Trudeau’s spending, which skyrocketed during the COVID crisis, of being a leading cause of inflation.

“When you double the national debt, you drive up demand, which builds up goods. You print $600 billion of cash, and that causes inflation just like it has everywhere and always over the last 5,000 years of economic history,” he said.

The Liberal federal government has faced backlash, notably from the CPC, that high inflation and immigration have led to soaring housing prices and interest rates.

The Bank of Canada, for the sixth straight time since July 2023, held the interest rate at 5 percent.

Protests against Trudeau have been increasing in recent months due to the unpopularity of higher carbon taxes and other governmental policies.

As reported by LifeSiteNews, Trudeau’s carbon tax is costing Canadians hundreds of dollars annually, as government rebates are not enough to compensate for high fuel costs.

Franco Terrazzano, federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, told LifeSiteNews in January that “If the government wanted to make all areas of life more affordable, the government should leave more money in people’s pockets and cut taxes.”

“Trudeau should completely scrap his carbon tax,” he added.

Recent polls show that the scandal-plagued government has sent the Liberals into a nosedive with no end in sight. Per a recent LifeSiteNews report, according to polls, in a federal election held today, Conservatives under Poilievre would win a majority in the House of Commons over Trudeau’s Liberals.

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

conflict

Victor Davis Hanson Makes a Disturbing Prediction About What Happens If Iran Survives

Published on

Amidst rough seas, you need a steady sailor.

Historian and classicist Victor Davis Hanson just delivered a masterful breakdown of the Iran conflict with clarity few can match.

Not just what’s happening, but what’s coming next.

“I think we’re going to see things that we haven’t seen in our lifetime in the Middle East,” he said.

This could go one of two ways, neither is small.

Victor Davis Hanson isn’t known for hyperbole. So when he opens with a warning like this, people pay attention:

“We are at an historic time in the Middle East,” he said.

“Never in our lifetimes have we been closer to a complete revolutionary fervor that gives promise of normalcy for the Middle East. And never have we been in more danger of seeing the entire region blow up.”

The paradox is striking.

Peace may be closer than ever, but so is total collapse.

And at the center of it all is the unfolding conflict between Iran and Israel, which Hanson called “surreal.”

Reflecting on the rapid collapse of Iran’s regional dominance, Hanson admitted that even a few years ago, this moment would have been unthinkable.

“If we had this conversation five years ago,” he said, “and I said to you, the Iranian nation that is huge compared to Israel, ten times the population, the Iranian nation has lost all control of the Houthi terrorists, and they are themselves neutered…”

He pointed to a chain reaction across the region: Iran’s proxy forces in Gaza and the West Bank have been neutralized. Hezbollah, once a feared military force, is now dormant.

“They’re gone as a Hamas, as a fighting force. The formidable, the terrifying Hezbollah cadres, they’re inert.”

The chaos in Syria, once a stronghold of Iranian influence, now seems to be working against Tehran.

“There is no more Syria, the Assad dynasty, the pro-Iranian, the Syria. It’s in chaos. But whatever the chaos is, seems to be anti-Iranian.”

The collapse is strategic, not just symbolic. Hanson noted that the so-called “Shia crescent” connecting Tehran to the Mediterranean is no longer intact.

“Lebanon is free of Iranian influence. So is Syria. Gaza, a de facto, will be.”

Even Russia, once a key ally, is no longer a player in the region.

“It’s tied down in Ukraine,” he said.

“Iran itself, the formidable powerhouse of the Middle East that evoked terror all over, has no defenses.”

Over the course of just five days, Israel has launched a targeted military campaign to dismantle Iran’s strategic infrastructure.

According to Hanson, the damage has been sweeping.

“They have dismantled all of the Iranian missile defenses. They have dismantled the terrorist hierarchy. They have dismantled the people who are responsible for the nuclear program.”

And yet, there’s risk.

“The Iranians have sent over 400 ballistic missiles and drones into Israel,” he said, “and 90 percent are stop. But that 10 percent gets through.”

Which brings us to the turning point.

All of this only matters if it ends with Iran’s theocracy on the brink of collapse.

If it doesn’t, everything that’s been gained could be erased.

“All of this chaos and all of this war will be for not if Iran’s theocracy emerges intact from this war.”

Even more dangerous, he added, would be a scenario in which the country’s nuclear infrastructure survives or can be quickly rebuilt.

That possibility has triggered one of the most urgent strategic questions on the table: Can Israel finish the job?

Or will it need help from the United States to strike Iran’s deeply buried nuclear facilities?

This is where things get complicated.

Under the “America First” foreign policy doctrine, Trump has been clear: no more forever wars, no more ground troops in the Middle East.

But Hanson argued that Trump’s actions tell a deeper story.

“I’m not an isolationist, I’m a Jacksonian,” he said, echoing what Trump might say.

“You should have known that when I took out Soleimani… when I took out Baghdadi… when I took out the Wagner Group.”

The message? Trump doesn’t go looking for wars. But when deterrence is at stake, he’s not afraid to act decisively.

Still, Hanson posed a chilling question: what if the Iranian regime survives?

“If this war should end with the Iranian regime intact and the elements of its nuclear program recoverable,” he warned, “then in some ways it will be all for naught.”

Despite Iran’s military losses, its media destruction and its isolated position, surviving such a coordinated strike could give it something even more powerful than weapons: perceived invincibility.

“It will be more like, oh my gosh, Iran survived everything that Israel, and by association the United States, threw at it.”

“It’s indestructible.”

And that, Hanson suggested, would be the real danger.

Not just a return to the status quo, but a shift in perception that emboldens the regime and reshapes the balance of power across the region.

Now the question hanging over the entire conflict is this: does the world play it safe and allow remnants of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure to survive?

Or risk a final strike that could eliminate the threat for good, but possibly trigger even greater instability?

“Do you risk more danger by taking out and eliminating the nuclear threat for good,” Hanson asked, “and by association, you humiliate the theocracy to the point it can be overthrown?”

That’s the gamble.

He didn’t shy away from his own discomfort with war.

“I don’t like forever wars,” he added.

“I don’t like preemptive wars. I do not like the United States intervening anywhere in that godforsaken area. But if the war ends with the regime intact and a recoverable nuclear program, it won’t just be back to square one. It will be a disaster.”

That’s when he dropped a bombshell prediction of the future in the area after the dust settles in the desert.

Whether this ends in collapse or resurgence, Hanson believes the next phase of the war could reshape the entire region and the world’s understanding of power in the Middle East.

“So we’ll see what happens,” he said.

“And hold on, everybody. I think we’re going to see things that we haven’t seen in our lifetime in the Middle East. And it could turn out very bad.”

“But it could also turn out to be quite revolutionary and remake the map of the entire region.”

This story was made possible with the help of Overton —I couldn’t have done it without him.

If you’d like to support his growing network, consider subscribing for the month or the year. Your support helps him expand his team and cover more stories like this one.

We both truly appreciate your support!


Subscribe to The Vigilant Fox

Thousands of paid subscribers
The stories that matter the media hopes you’ll never hear.
Subscribe now to stay sharp and informed.
Continue Reading

Alberta

Alberta Trailblazing On Property Rights Protections

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Joseph Quesnel

Most pundits missed it, but Alberta’s revised Bill of Rights just strengthened property rights in a big way. Senior research fellow Joseph Quesnel breaks down how new amendments could protect landowners from regulatory takings—government actions that restrict property use without compensation. He examines key Supreme Court of Canada rulings and explains why every Canadian jurisdiction should take note. Could this be a game-changer for property rights?

Property rights amendments prevent governments from seizing land or restricting its use without compensation

Alberta is one of the few Canadian jurisdictions with a citizen’s bill of rights outlining fundamental freedoms. In 1972, the Lougheed government introduced the Alberta Bill of Rights, which supersedes other laws and requires provincial legislation to be consistent with it.

Premier Danielle Smith faced controversy last year for amending Alberta’s Bill of Rights. While most commentators focused on the amendments protecting the right to refuse vaccinations, they overlooked the significance of changes that strengthen property rights.

Section 1 now states: “The right to the enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof to the extent authorized by law and except by due process of law.”

Another new clause reads: “The right not to be subject to a taking of property except to the extent authorized by law and where just compensation is provided.”

The law defines a “taking” in two ways: as “a transfer of property ownership without the consent of the owner (expropriation)” and as a situation where “an owner of property [is] being deprived of all reasonable uses of that property.”

Unlike the United States, Canada lacks constitutional protections for property rights. While Canadians have some legal safeguards, they are not as extensive as those in the U.S. In the British common law tradition, there is a presumption that if the government takes a citizen’s property, it must follow legal procedures and provide compensation.

This principle dates back to the Magna Carta of 1215, which opposed arbitrary seizure, and extends to the 1920 British case Attorney General v. De Keyser’s Royal Hotel, which ruled: “Unless the words of the statute clearly so demand, a statute is not to be construed to take away the property of a subject without compensation.”

Following this precedent, federal, provincial and territorial governments in Canada must provide fair compensation when expropriating property. While provinces and territories have different expropriation laws, they all require due process.

However, a legal loophole allows governments to deprive citizens of their property without compensation. Courts refer to this as a “regulatory taking” when government regulations restrict land use to the point that it is effectively expropriated.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled on regulatory takings in two cases: Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Vancouver (2006) and Annapolis Group Inc. v. Halifax Regional Municipality (2022). The court determined that compensation for regulatory takings requires two conditions: the government must acquire a beneficial interest in the property, and the regulation must remove all reasonable uses of the land. A beneficial interest means the government gains a financial share or the right to occupy a property without legally owning it.

Peter Russell, one of Canada’s top constitutional law scholars, argued that the requirements established in the CPR case are nearly impossible to meet. Proving the removal of “all” reasonable uses sets a high bar, granting governments broad discretion to restrict land use without compensation.

The Annapolis ruling clarified this issue. The Supreme Court determined that municipalities do not need to gain a proprietary interest in a property to constitute a regulatory taking. Instead, a claimant only needs to prove the government received “a benefit or advantage accruing to the state” due to regulatory activity. This means the government can deprive a titleholder of potential economic use without taking legal ownership.

The Annapolis decision also established that courts must consider future-oriented land uses when determining whether a regulatory taking has occurred. The amended Alberta Bill of Rights now explicitly includes both expropriations and regulatory takings, strengthening property rights protections.

This amendment is significant because it expands safeguards for Albertans by applying not only to provincial laws but also to municipal bylaws. While Alberta cannot enforce laws that conflict with the amended Bill of Rights, the revisions give courts more authority to ensure governments treat citizens fairly.

The updated Bill of Rights is now law in Alberta. Other provinces and territories should follow its lead and strengthen protections for their citizens.

Joseph Quesnel is a senior research fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Continue Reading

Trending

X