Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Opinion

Trudeau and Singh Scheme to Delay Election, Secure Payouts on the Taxpayer’s Dime

Published

10 minute read

Let’s get real about what’s going on in Canada right now. In the Meeting No. 130 PROC – Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on Bill C-65, Justin Trudeau and his Liberal minions, backed by their trusty NDP sidekicks, are pushing forward a so-called “reform” to delay Canada’s next election. Their excuse? They’re “making voting more inclusive.” But the real reason? To buy themselves a cushy retirement at your expense.

Here’s the scheme: Trudeau and his Liberal-NDP alliance want to push the election back by a week. Not to secure democracy, not to make voting accessible, but to guarantee that MPs who were elected in 2019 get their golden parachute—hitting that magic six-year mark to cash in on their pensions. They’re wrapping it all up in talk about “accessibility” and “inclusivity,” but the facts laid out in committee make it clear—this is nothing more than a taxpayer-funded jackpot for Trudeau’s coalition. It’s like watching a heist in slow motion, and the people pulling it off are your elected officials.

Let’s break down the facts: Bill C-65 is presented as a way to make voting “inclusive” by moving the election from October 20 to October 27 to avoid overlapping with Diwali. Really? Suddenly the Trudeau government is all about Diwali? When did Justin Trudeau become the defender of every cultural holiday? If that were true, they’d be calling a snap election to get back to Canadians sooner, not later. But this isn’t about inclusivity; it’s about squeezing the system dry for every penny they can get.

Conservative MP Eric Duncan and Bloc MP Marie-Hélène Gaudreau saw right through it. They grilled Trudeau’s Privy Council Office (PCO) witnesses, who came armed with vague talking points but no real answers. The obvious question: Why push the election back when we already have advance polling? The answer? Crickets. The PCO’s representatives mumbled about “scheduling challenges” and “inclusivity,” but never explained why delaying the election is somehow the only solution.

And who’s standing right next to Trudeau in this scheme? The NDP. Trudeau’s favorite backup team, once again signing onto a shady deal to keep their coalition afloat. The NDP’s MP Daniel Blaikie was all in, rubber-stamping the date change. The reason? This move locks in the pensions not just for Liberals, but for their NDP buddies too. The whole thing reeks of backroom deals and mutual back-scratching. It’s a classic case of “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours”—and Canadian taxpayers are left footing the bill.

In committee, Liberal MP Mark Gerretsen tried to play damage control, dismissing the pension concern as “Conservative scandal-mongering.” That’s right, folks: If you’re upset that your tax dollars are funding a Liberal-NDP pension scheme, Gerretsen says you’re the problem. He and his Liberal colleagues want you to believe that this bill is about “democracy.” But tell me, how democratic is it to change election dates so politicians can milk the system?

The Damning Parts of Bill C-65

So what are the most damning parts of Bill C-65? It’s a textbook case of self-serving political maneuvering. First, there’s the election date change itself—a convenient one-week delay that coincides perfectly with the deadline for MPs elected in 2019 to secure their pensions. This timing isn’t just suspicious; it’s blatant. With no other compelling reason, Trudeau’s Liberals are trying to sell the public on a delay that just happens to benefit their own pocketbooks. What’s even more shocking is that they’re hiding behind Diwali, as if Canadians can’t see right through it.

And the privacy implications? Almost completely glossed over. Bill C-65 falls flat on providing robust privacy protections. Instead, it opens the door for political parties to access voters’ sensitive data under a weak framework that offers minimal oversight. This is more than a missed opportunity; it’s an intentional sidestep to ensure politicians retain easy access to personal information for campaigning purposes.

Then there’s the lack of genuine accountability for foreign interference. Sure, they included some anti-interference provisions, but glaring loopholes remain. Leadership races and nomination contests are still fair game for foreign influence. The Liberals tout this bill as election protection, but when it comes to securing the integrity of the entire process, they’ve left the doors wide open.

Trudeau’s Swamp: When “Inclusivity” Is Just a Cover for Corruption

Let’s be clear about what’s happening here. Justin Trudeau’s government isn’t interested in protecting democracy; they’re interested in protecting their own pockets and political power. Bill C-65 is the latest swamp maneuver by a Liberal-NDP alliance that wants you to believe their motives are pure, cloaking a blatant cash grab under the guise of “inclusivity” and “accessibility.” But real inclusivity doesn’t need backroom deals or sudden election delays. Real inclusivity doesn’t make a mockery of Canadians’ intelligence by pretending a pension-padding scheme is about respecting religious holidays.

This is Trudeau’s swamp at its finest—sneaking in self-serving perks under the cover of high-minded ideals. By claiming they’re moving the election for “cultural sensitivity,” they’re hoping Canadians will overlook what’s really going on: a calculated effort to stretch their time in office just long enough to qualify for generous pensions. And Jagmeet Singh? He’s right there beside Trudeau in this scheme, securing his own taxpayer-funded future, while selling out the values he claims to stand for. This is a backroom deal that pays off for everyone except Canadian taxpayers, who get nothing but excuses and empty rhetoric.

And when opposition MPs raised these glaring issues—why Canadians are seeing no real electoral reforms or accountability—Trudeau’s team sidestepped, evaded, and downplayed. Even the so-called “anti-interference” measures fall flat, with loopholes so wide you could drive a truck through them. Foreign interference protections that ignore internal nomination contests? Privacy policies that allow political parties to dip into Canadians’ data with next to no oversight? It’s government overreach at best, outright negligence at worst, and yet they insist this is all about “democracy.”

If Trudeau’s government truly cared about protecting democracy, they wouldn’t be delaying elections to suit their pension schedules. They’d be calling an election to let Canadians decide who deserves to lead, right now. But they won’t do that because they know they’re losing the trust of Canadians, who are waking up to these games. They’d rather delay, manipulate, and cash in, hoping that enough time will make people forget this little “adjustment” to the election date.

This isn’t just political maneuvering; it’s a power grab. Trudeau and Singh are the faces of a swamp that puts self-interest before public service, personal gain before genuine leadership. They’re bending the rules to keep themselves and their allies comfortable, all while counting on Canadians to stay distracted. But Canadians are smarter than that, and they’re watching as this government dips into their wallets, lines their own pockets, and calls it “inclusivity.”

This is government corruption disguised as progressivism. This is your leadership in Canada today—when the very people elected to serve Canadians are the ones robbing them blind, hiding behind “woke” language to pull off their heist. Trudeau’s swamp doesn’t just run deep; it’s becoming the whole system. And every day they stay in power, they’re counting on Canadians to look the other way.

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

Automotive

Parliament Forces Liberals to Release Stellantis Contracts After $15-Billion Gamble Blows Up In Taxpayer Faces

Published on

The Opposition with Dan Knight

Dan Knight's avatar Dan Knight

After betting taxpayer billions on a green-industry deal that collapsed under U.S. tariffs, MPs move to expose what Ottawa promised Stellantis and what Canadians actually got for the money.

Parliament just blew the lid off one of the biggest corporate giveaways in Canadian history.

For years, Ottawa and Queen’s Park have bragged about “historic investments” in green manufacturing. What they didn’t say is that $15 billion of your money went to Stellantis, the Dutch auto conglomerate behind Chrysler, Jeep, and Ram, only for the company to announce it’s cutting 3,000 jobs in Brampton and shipping them south to the United States.

That betrayal is what triggered a heated meeting of the House of Commons Government Operations Committee on October 21. What started as routine procedure turned into a full-scale reckoning over how billions were handed to a foreign corporation with almost no strings attached.

Conservative MP Garnett Genuis opened with a blunt motion: produce every contract, memorandum of understanding, or side deal the government signed with Stellantis and its affiliates since 2015. Every page, every clause, in both official languages, “without redaction.” The demand wasn’t symbolic, it was about finding out if Trudeau’s government ever required the company to keep those Canadian jobs it was paid to “protect.”

Liberals scrambled to block it. MP Jenna Sudds proposed an amendment that would let bureaucrats black out whatever they deemed “sensitive.” In practice, that meant hiding anything embarrassing — from cabinet discussions to corporate fine print. Opposition MPs called it exactly what it was: a cover-up clause. It failed.

The committee floor turned into open warfare. The Bloc Québécois tried a softer sub-amendment giving the House Law Clerk power to vet redactions. Conservatives countered with their own version forcing departments to hand over unredacted contracts and justify any blackouts in writing. After a suspension and some backroom wrangling, a rare thing happened: compromise.

The motion passed unanimously. Even the Liberals couldn’t vote against it once the light was on.

The debate itself revealed how badly Ottawa has lost control of its own economic agenda. Conservatives pressed officials on why Canadians were paying billions for “job creation” only to see Stellantis pack up for Illinois once U.S. tariffs came down. Liberals blamed Trump, tariffs, and “global conditions,” the excuses were almost comical. Liberal members blamed Donald Trump —yes, really— for Stellantis abandoning Canada. According to them, Trump’s tariffs and “America First” trade policy scared the company into moving production south.

But here’s what they didn’t say: Trump announced his 2024 presidential campaign on November 15, 2022, promising to rip up Joe Biden’s green industrial agenda and bring manufacturing back to U.S. soil. Everyone heard it. Everyone knew it. And yet, on July 6, 2023, more than half a year later, Ottawa proudly unveiled its $15-billion subsidy for Stellantis and LG Energy Solution — a deal built entirely on the assumption that Trump wouldn’t win.

So let’s be clear about what happened here. They didn’t just hand billions to a foreign automaker. They gambled that the next U.S. president wouldn’t change course. They bet the house —your tax dollars— on a political outcome in another country.

Think about that. Fifteen billion dollars of public money wagered on a campaign prediction. They bet on black, and it landed on red.

Even if the gamble had gone their way — even if Trump had lost and Biden’s green subsidy regime had survived untouched — the deal would still have been a terrible bargain.

During the committee meeting, the Bloc Québécois pointed to the 2023 Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report, which projected that the combined federal and Ontario subsidies to Stellantis and Volkswagen, roughly $28 billion total, including Stellantis’s $15 billion share, wouldn’t even break even for twenty years. That means taxpayers would have to wait until the mid-2040s just to recover what Ottawa spent.

So imagine the “best-case scenario”: the U.S. keeps its green-industry incentives, the plant stays in Canada, and production runs at full capacity. Even then, ordinary Canadians don’t see a financial return for two decades. There are no guaranteed profits, no guaranteed jobs, and no repayment. It was a long-odds bet on a global policy trend, financed entirely with public money.

In other words, whether the roulette wheel landed on black or red, the house still lost because the government put your chips on the table in a game it never controlled.

Behind the numbers, the story is brutally simple: Ottawa slid its chips across the table, wrote the cheques, and Stellantis walked away with the winnings. When MPs tried to see the receipts, the government grabbed for the cover of secrecy — no sunlight, no scrutiny, just “trust us.”

Now, for the first time, Parliament is about to peek under the table. The committee will finally see the real contracts — not the press releases, not the slogans, but the fine print that tells Canadians what they actually paid for. The review will happen behind closed doors at first, but the pressure to show the public what’s inside will be enormous.

Because if those documents confirm what MPs already suspect —that there were no job guarantees, no clawbacks, and no consequences —then this isn’t just a bad hand. It’s a rigged table.

Ottawa didn’t just gamble with taxpayer money; it gambled against the odds, and the dealer —in this case, Stellantis— already knew the outcome. Even if the wheel had landed on black, taxpayers were still stuck covering a twenty-year “break-even” fantasy, as the Bloc reminded everyone.

The next two weeks will show Canadians whether their government actually bought jobs or just bought headlines. One thing is certain: the high-rollers in Ottawa have been playing roulette with your money, and the wheel’s finally slowing down.

 

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

Who tries to silence free speech? Apparently who ever is in power.

Published on

Now that Trump is running Washington, Conservative thinkers must ponder a new-found appreciation for silencing speech they don’t like.

From StosselTV

Donald Trump, before he was reelected, said he’d end government censorship. But now that he’s in office? He calls speech he doesn’t like “illegal.”

Free Speech should be a bedrock American value, no matter who’s in office. After the murder of Charlie Kirk, Republicans, who once complained about censorship, became censors. Democrats suddenly flip-flopped. All politicians should remember, the way to fight speech you don’t like, is with more speech, not censorship.

After 40+ years of reporting, I now understand the importance of limited government and personal freedom.

——————————————

Libertarian journalist John Stossel created Stossel TV to explain liberty and free markets to young people.

Prior to Stossel TV he hosted a show on Fox Business and co-anchored ABC’s primetime newsmagazine show, 20/20.

Stossel’s economic programs have been adapted into teaching kits by a non-profit organization, “Stossel in the Classroom.” High school teachers in American public schools now use the videos to help educate their students on economics and economic freedom. They are seen by more than 12 million students every year.

———

To make sure you receive the weekly video from Stossel TV, sign up here: https://www.johnstossel.com/#subscrib…

———

Continue Reading

Trending

X