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

Opinion

RFK Jr. Reveals Unforgettable Details About Charlie Kirk in Emotional Tribute

Published on

The Vigilant Fox

The Kennedy Center overflowed with emotion Sunday evening as mourners honored Charlie Kirk, who was fatally shot in the neck while debating students at Utah Valley University on September 10.

Thousands showed up, many waiting in long lines outside the hall to hear tributes from Karoline Leavitt, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Speaker Mike Johnson, DNI Tulsi Gabbard, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, and others, in a historic gathering paying tribute to the one-and-only Charlie Kirk.

Among those waiting outside was a 14-year-old boy named Bryson Levy, who blew away Real America Voice’s Ben Bergquam with powerful words about Kirk:

BEN: “Young man, you want to say why you’re here, what Charlie Kirk meant to you?”

BRYSON: “He was my idol. I remember watching his videos, wanting to be like him. I would just see the way he would debate, and he stayed calm while the left was just yelling at him. And he was just so nice about it.

“And then, they hated him so much because he knew he was right, but they just didn’t want to admit it, so they ended up hating him, and they just killed him for it.”

BEN (left in awe): “What’s your name? How old are you?”

BRYSON: “I’m Bryson Levy. I’m 14.”

BEN: “Man, God bless you.”

Keep a close eye on this kid. He’s going places.

Inside the hall, Speaker Mike Johnson fought back tears as he spoke about Kirk’s love for others, telling the crowd, “We know exactly where Charlie is right now.”

Karoline Leavitt followed with a heartfelt seven-minute tribute. She told the audience how Kirk believed in her when no one else did, capturing how his kind heart left an impression everywhere he went.

Then came DNI Tulsi Gabbard, who turned her attention to the “empty” people mocking Kirk’s death:

“Those who are full of anger and hopelessness and hate right now, some of them protesting outside this hall today, unfortunately, they do not have the spiritual happiness that Charlie experienced. They’re empty.

“And this is where their anger is coming from. It is their rejection of God, their desire to be God. And therefore, they have made God their enemy.”

Following Gabbard was HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who brought new stories that lit up the internet.

First, he shared that his 17-year-old niece Zoe now carries a Bible to college because she wants to “live like Charlie Kirk.”

Kennedy then revealed that Kirk was the “primary architect” of his unification with President Trump.

Kirk even came up with the idea to light sparklers on stage when Kennedy shook Trump’s hand.

He made a big show of it,” Kennedy laughed.

That detail spread like wildfire on social media.

Kennedy’s handshake of unity with Trump on the 2024 campaign trail quickly became one of the most iconic political moments in history, and Charlie Kirk was the mastermind behind it all.

File:Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. & Donald Trump (53953048159).jpg - Wikimedia  Commons
Image: Wikipedia

But it was Kennedy’s closing that brought the house down. The entire building joined in thunderous chants of “USA!” after he shared a private conversation he once had with Kirk about death:

“I had a conversation once with Charlie where we were talking about the danger that we both faced from challenging entrenched interests. And he asked me if I was scared to die. And I said to him, ‘There’s a lot worse things than dying.’

“And one of the chief among us is losing our constitutional rights and having our children raised in slavery.

“I said to him at that time, ‘Sometimes our only consolation is that we can die with our boots on. We can die fighting for these things.’

Charlie gave his life so that the rest of us would not have to suffer those fates worse than death,” Kennedy stressed.

“Now it’s our job. He’s no longer there to lead us,” Kennedy continued, telling the audience to “rush in and fill the breach” to win “this battle for our country, for God, and for our families.”

The crowd’s response was electric, erupting into thunderous chants of “USA!” Listen for yourself to hear just how powerful it was.

After Kennedy’s speech came Kari Lake, whose voice couldn’t hide her pain as she warned parents about the dangers of universities, or as she called them, “indoctrination camps.”

“How does a 22-year-old become so filled with hate?” she asked.

“Five years earlier, I was told he was a Trump supporter, and we sent our kids off to college, and they brainwashed them. I am making a plea to mothers out there. Do not send your children into these indoctrination camps. Don’t do it. Do not do it.

“At one moment, that 22-year-old who shot Charlie was a baby in his mother’s arms. And by all accounts, those parents did a good job raising him until he was sent off to be brainwashed. We have lived through the most horrific brainwashing campaign in the history of mankind.”

One of the last speakers was Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, who shared a story from her travels with Kirk. She described watching him debate college students, dismantling one argument after another with calm precision, before landing the line of the night.

“One by one, no matter how controversial the question was, [Charlie] would dismantle them with his reasoning. And that’s when I realized something: Charlie Kirk didn’t need college. College needed Charlie Kirk.”

The crowd instantly knew that one was a winner. Expect plenty of t-shirts and memes with this quote to start popping up soon.

It was a beautiful night, filled with powerful words honoring one of the most influential young men in history.

Watch the full coverage of Charlie Kirk’s prayer vigil and the celebration of his life here:

Share


NOTE: In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s tragic death, VigilantFox.com is fully committed to covering this story from every angle.

We believe this is a pivotal moment that will shape the future of younger generations and define the left vs. right divide for years to come.

We will not let up in covering this story and giving it the full attention it deserves. Thank you for your support.

Continue Reading

Alberta

Break the Fences, Keep the Frontier

Published on

Marco Navarro-Génie's avatar Marco Navarro-Génie

Note: This post was written from notes prepared for a panel at the Canada Strong and Free Conference in Calgary on Sept 6. I am grateful for the invitation and the opportunity to explore solutions to recognized interprovincial barriers and push further beyond.

Haultain’s Substack is a reader-supported publication.

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

Try it out.


Alberta is the number one destination for Canadians seeking a better life. In the last 5 years, 1 of 3 Canadians moving out of their provinces seeking a better life have come to Alberta. People come to Alberta to escape stagnant wages, unaffordable housing, and the bureaucratic chokeholds of central Canada. They come for work, for opportunity, and for the chance to get ahead. Alberta doesn’t just have oil and gas; it has policies and an entrepreneurial culture that reward hard work. (Every province, except for PEI, has hydrocarbon resources, but most chose not to exploit them). That’s why the province often draws more people than it loses.

But Alberta cannot assume it will always stay ahead. Prosperity, like liberty, is not automatic, and it can vanish if Albertans get complacent. To remain the country’s economic frontier, Alberta must keep moving. That means tearing down the barriers to trade and commerce we still have and fighting the new ones Ottawa and other provinces are busy inventing.

The costs of standing still are enormous. Economists estimate internal trade barriers drain Canada of up to $130 billion a year, as much as seven percent of GDP, a fraction of what the Trump tariffs would inflict. For Alberta alone, even a ten percent reduction in interprovincial barriers would be worth $7.3 billion annually. And when Quebec blocked the Energy East pipeline, Alberta lost the chance to ship crude worth as much as $15 billion a year — roughly one-fifth of its economy. That isn’t theory; that is lost paycheques, foregone tax revenue, and hospitals and schools that never got funded.

Alberta has worked to make itself freer than most provinces. Liquor was privatized decades ago—Ditto for property registries. The New West Partnership has opened labour mobility and procurement between Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and B.C. Alberta imposes no cultural or linguistic tests on newcomers. No PST. These are the reasons people come here — because it’s easier to find work, to start a business, to access pristine natural environments, to raise your children, and to get on with your life. Less bureaucracy and fewer people telling you what to do and how to live.

But there are still cracks in the foundation. Alberta’s liquor market is open on the retail side, but still congested at the warehouse level due to the AGLC monopoly. Professional guilds in law, teaching, and health care slow down credential recognition. Public procurement often tilts local in ways that make no sense. And like every province, Alberta still bows to Ottawa’s telecommunications rules, the banking oligopoly, the dairy and poultry cartels (supply management), even though it benefits Quebec farmers and hurts Alberta’s. These barriers cost real money and serve no useful purpose.

If those are the old barriers, new ones are emerging. The most notorious new barrier isn’t new at all. This is the recently resurrected protectionist reflex in the RoC. For a century and a half, Canadians have built a culture that is contrary to the dream of their founding fathers to have open trade within the country. Canadians like to mock Donald Trump’s tariffs, but their instincts are no different. When Trump tariffed Canadian steel, Ottawa’s immediate answer was “We’ll buy Canadian” as retaliation. The elbows-up, “buy local” campaigns are no different from the commercial nationalism Trump is using. And the “buy local” impetus precedes Trump. They prop up the cartels and marketing boards, the oligopolistic giants in telecoms, banking, groceries, and construction. Such reflexes are not based on free market ideas.

What makes this 21st-century mercantilism sting even more is the lack of any real appetite in Ottawa to defend free trade. When Mark Carney announced he would “help” canola farmers, it was a double insult. First, it signalled that in the Prime Minister’s Office, there is no courage to fight for open markets abroad — subsidies at home are easier than complicated negotiations. Second, those subsidies are no gift: they are paid for by the very farmers they are supposed to help, through taxes collected in Saskatchewan and Alberta, among others, laundered through Ottawa’s bureaucracy, and handed back with a smile. This is Canada’s oligopoly culture in miniature: no defence of free markets, more subsidies to placate, and more Ottawa bureaucrats to process the paperwork. All of these come at a price. Ottawa money is never free money.

And the irony deepens. Carney himself promised that interprovincial barriers would be gone by July 1, 2025. He did not deliver. And his latest announcement of a new “process” to expedite infrastructure risks does precisely the opposite — adding new layers of federal meddling, vetoes and Ottawa bureaucrats into what should be provincial decisions.


Haultain Research is a reader-supported publication.

If you enjoy our work and would like to support us and see more of it, please share our posts

and consider becoming a paid subscriber.


The enforcement of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, along with the surrounding culture, is a recent development. What began as workplace training has evolved into a mechanism for bureaucrats and gatekeepers to extend their authority. In some regions, such as Ontario, DEI mandates have been codified into law, forcing individuals to think and act in ways that are not of their own choosing.

This kind of identitarian enforcement saps productivity, creates “bullsh*t jobs” focused on compliance, and categorizes people instead of promoting unity among them. Most concerning is the way it restricts mobility for workers who don’t fit ideological criteria, punishing those who refuse to conform. This system creates opportunities only for a select, tiny class of individuals.

Alberta has a distinct advantage in this context, as it has not fully embraced the DEI agenda—apart from federal agencies and affiliated organizations, sadly including our own ATB. However, it must remain vigilant against the encroaching imposition of these practices.

The third significant challenge we face on the horizon is “debanking.” In 2022, we witnessed how swiftly Ottawa could order banks to freeze accounts, and how readily banks complied. Since then, federal regulators have been extending their influence under the guise of anti-money laundering regulations. The reality is straightforward: industries or individuals that federal governments deem undesirable can be cut off from financial services. For Alberta, with its energy sector labelled as a threat to the planet, this poses a considerable risk. Entire industries—or even individuals who consume “too much” energy—could soon find themselves excluded from the marketplace by radicals in the PMO.

David Suzuki once called for criminally charging folks he considered environmental offenders, and the NDP has expressed a preference for criminalizing support for the oil and gas sector (The NDP, ostensible fond of books in schools and free speech, also wants to criminalize asking questions about non-existent mass graves and the fictional narrative of genocide in Canada). A free economy loses its meaning if citizens can be excluded from it through government decrees. Alberta must protect its residents by establishing ATB as a fortress for banking, addressing any divisive tendencies, and enshrining access to banking as a civil right. Alberta needs to protect its citizens when those federally chartered banks act as enforcers for Ottawa.

So what does moving forward look like? Alberta has a strong culture of enterprise, but it cannot rest on its laurels. Unless it works to keep ahead, others will eventually catch up. Alberta must double down on being the most desirable place in Canada to live and work. That means bold and greater transformational reforms.

Breaking the cartel-like influence of professional regulators—such as teachers, lawyers, doctors, and nurses—who have transformed their organizations into barriers is crucial. These groups often prosecute their members to enforce ideological beliefs that most Albertans do not support.

Additionally, we need to ensure that access to banking is protected in provincial law, regulating credit unions so that no Albertan can be denied banking services for political reasons. We should also consider breaking up large municipalities to encourage smaller communities to compete for residents and businesses.

Ending the equalization payments and replacing them with a Goods and Services Tax (GST) transfer to Ottawa is necessary to ensure that Alberta’s wealth benefits Albertans directly. Healthcare delivery must be reformed so that patients receive timely services and genuine choices.

Furthermore, we should deregulate trucking and housing construction to make life more affordable for families. Finally, we must tackle public service unions that operate like political monopolies, using examples from small towns like Coaldale to demonstrate how reform can begin at the grassroots level.

Canada advocates for free trade but often behaves like a medieval guild. Alberta has demonstrated that a more liberated approach is viable, but the province must continue to leverage its advantages. This involves resisting cartels, challenging the banks, dismantling outdated barriers, and preventing the emergence of new ones before they become too imposing.

Alberta has always been a frontier — a place where people come to build, take risks, and prosper. Frontiers are not maintained by standing still; they thrive by moving forward. If Alberta continues to push ahead, it can remain the engine of prosperity and the most desirable place to live and work. However, if it becomes complacent, it risks falling behind, becoming weaker, and Ottawa will be more than willing to take advantage of that.

The choice is simple: Alberta can either be fenced in by cartels and bureaucrats, or it can break the fences and keep the frontier open. That is the task, and it is one worthy of Alberta’s spirit.

Share Haultain Research

For the full experience, and to help us bring you more quality research and commentary, please upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Trending

X