Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

National

Trudeau’s Senate Power Grab – How Every Province is Now Under Ottawa’s Thumb

Published

9 minute read

The Opposition with Dan Knight
Good morning my fellow Canadians. We’ve got a major story that goes right to the heart of the political swamp in Ottawa. Justin Trudeau has just appointed two new senators from Alberta, and, as usual, he’s trying to sell them to us as “independent.”

First, let’s talk about who these new senators are. Dr. Kristopher Wells is one of them. Wells is a well-known activist in the 2SLGBTQ+ community, a vocal advocate for every liberal cause under the sun. He’s been busy pushing for policies that promote radical gender ideology in schools, criticizing Alberta’s conservative stance at every turn. Now, Trudeau wants us to believe that Wells, who has made a career out of progressive activism, will somehow be an “independent” voice in the Senate? Give me a break.

Let’s be absolutely clear here, folks: Daryl Fridhandler is no impartial figure. He’s a corporate lawyer who’s spent years involved in organizations pushing left-wing agendas under the guise of community service. And what does that really mean? He’s a leftist activist, plain and simple.

And now, Trudeau wants us to believe Fridhandler’s Senate appointment is “independent”? Give me a break. This guy has funneled nearly $80,000 into the Liberal Party—($79,968.77, to be exact). The Senate shouldn’t be for sale to the highest bidder or most loyal crony. This is a classic Trudeau move, stacking the Senate with his cronies and turning it into a rubber stamp for his radical agenda. It’s not just political maneuvering; it’s an outright attack on our democratic institutions.

The Senate is supposed to serve as a check on power, a place for sober second thought, not a Liberal lapdog doing Trudeau’s bidding. This is the kind of corrupt backroom dealing that erodes public trust and undermines the very fabric of our democracy.

Now, let’s turn to Alberta Premier Danielle Smith. She’s not happy, and frankly, who can blame her? She called out these appointments for what they are—another shameless attempt by Trudeau to undercut the democratic will of Albertans. Smith points out that Alberta has a system for electing senators-in-waiting, who are meant to represent the interests of Albertans in Ottawa. Yet, Trudeau has completely ignored these elected representatives. Instead, he has handpicked his own cronies. And make no mistake, these so-called “independent” senators are Justin Trudeaus cronies and will vote whichever way he tells them too.

Smith’s objection isn’t just about these specific appointees. It’s about the broader pattern we’ve seen from this government— a total disregard for Alberta’s democratic choices. Remember, folks, Alberta has repeatedly elected conservative senators-in-waiting, people who actually represent the interests of their province. But Trudeau doesn’t care about that. No, he’d rather install people who are loyal to him, not to the people of Alberta.

This brings us to the so-called Independent Advisory Board for Senate Appointments. Trudeau loves to talk about how this board is “independent,” how it’s all about merit-based criteria, blah, blah, blah. But let’s get real for a second. This board isn’t independent at all. The members are nominated by Trudeau. They report to Trudeau. They recommend candidates to Trudeau. And then Trudeau appoints his picks, all while pretending there’s some kind of impartial process at play. It’s a total sham!

Let’s break it down even further. The whole process is designed to look like it’s fair and transparent, but in reality, it’s just another way for Trudeau to exert control. The so-called independent senators are anything but. They might not wear Liberal Party badges, but make no mistake—they’re marching to the beat of Trudeau’s drum. This isn’t about finding the best people to serve Canadians. It’s about finding the best people to serve Justin Trudeau and his agenda.

This isn’t just my opinion—look at the facts. Since 2016, Trudeau has made 86 appointments to the Senate, all under this “independent” system. And surprise, surprise, the Senate has drifted further and further left, rubber-stamping Trudeau’s policies with little resistance. The whole thing is a farce, and Trudeau’s latest picks just prove it.

And here’s the proof that the Senate isn’t independent: Bill C-18. This so-called “Online News Act” is Trudeau’s failed attempt at news censorship. The bill mandates that tech giants like Google and Meta (formerly Facebook) pay Canadian news publishers for content shared on their platforms. It sounds nice on paper, but what’s the result? Meta decided to ban all news content in Canada. That’s right. Canadian independent media lost its voice because they’re no longer being shared on the platforms where people actually get their news.

Ask yourself: if the Senate was truly independent, truly balanced with some business-savvy, right-leaning representatives, do you really think a bill like C-18 would have passed? No chance. Any senator with a shred of common sense would recognize that forcing tech companies into these kinds of deals doesn’t solve the problem; it just pushes these companies to cut ties with Canadian news entirely. But this Senate, filled with Trudeau’s picks, rubber-stamped it without a second thought.

The Senate was designed to be a place of independent judgment, a check on whoever’s in power—be it Liberal, Conservative, or otherwise. It’s supposed to ensure that no single party can bulldoze their agenda without scrutiny. But what happens when Trudeau stacks the Senate with his cronies? The whole system collapses! Even if the Conservatives take power tomorrow, Trudeau’s liberal foot soldiers will be there, blocking, stalling, and pushing his leftist agenda from the shadows of the Senate.

So, where does this leave Canada? It leaves us with a Senate that is increasingly a tool of the Prime Minister’s Office, rather than a chamber for balanced debate and regional representation. Every province, not just Alberta, is now at the whims of Ottawa, Justin Trudeau, and his handpicked cronies. The Senate no longer reflects the diverse interests of Canadians; instead, it mirrors the ideological leanings of one man. Provinces across the country are left sidelined, their democratic choices ignored, and their voices muted under Trudeau’s centralized control.

Danielle Smith is right to be furious. Albertans are right to be furious. And every Canadian who cares about democracy and fairness should be furious too. The Senate is supposed to be an independent body, a check on the power of the Prime Minister, not a rubber stamp for his agenda. But as long as Trudeau is in charge, it looks like that’s exactly what it’s going to be. And that’s not just a shame—it’s a scandal.

For the full experience, subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight 

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

Business

Canada needs serious tax cuts in 2026

Published on

By Franco Terrazzano

What Prime Minister Mark Carney gives with his left hand, he takes away with his right hand.

Canadians are already overtaxed and need serious tax cuts to make life more affordable and make our economy more competitive. But at best, the New Year will bring a mixed bag for Canadian taxpayers.

The federal government is cutting income taxes, but it’s hiking payroll taxes. The government cancelled the consumer carbon tax, but it’s hammering Canadian businesses with a higher industrial carbon tax.

The federal government cut the lowest income tax bracket from 15 to 14 per cent. That will save the average taxpayer $190 in 2026, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

But the government is taking more money from Canadians’ paycheques with higher payroll taxes.

Workers earning $85,000 or more will pay $5,770 in federal payroll taxes in 2026. That’s a $262 payroll tax hike. Their employers will also be forced to pay $6,219.

So Canadians will save a couple hundred bucks from the income tax cut in the new year, but many Canadians will pay a couple hundred bucks more in payroll taxes.

It’s the same story with carbon taxes.

After massive backlash from ordinary Canadians, the federal government dropped its consumer carbon tax that cost average families hundreds of dollars every year and increased the price of gas by about 18 cents per litre.

But Carney’s first budget shows he wants higher carbon taxes on Canadian businesses. Carney still hasn’t provided Canadians a clear answer on how much his business carbon tax will cost. He did, however, provide a hint during a press conference he held after signing a memorandum of understanding with the Alberta government.

“It means more than a six times increase in the industrial price on carbon,” Carney said.

Carney previously said that by “changing the carbon tax … We are making the large companies pay for everybody.”

Carney’s problem is that Canadians aren’t buying what he’s selling on carbon taxes.

Just 12 per cent of Canadians believe Carney that businesses will pay most of the cost of his carbon tax, according to a Leger poll. Nearly 70 per cent of Canadians say businesses will pass most or some of the cost to consumers.

Canadians understand that it doesn’t matter what type of lipstick politicians put on their carbon tax pig, all carbon taxes make life more expensive.

Carney is also continuing his predecessor’s tradition of automatically increasing booze taxes.

Ottawa will once again hike taxes on beer, wine and spirits in 2026 through its undemocratic alcohol tax escalator.

First passed in the 2017 federal budget, the alcohol escalator tax automatically increases federal taxes on beer, wine and spirits every year without a vote in Parliament.

Federal alcohol taxes are expected to increase by two per cent on April 1, and cost taxpayers $41 million in 2026. Since being imposed, the alcohol escalator tax has cost taxpayers about $1.6 billion, according to industry estimates.

Canadians are overtaxed and need the federal government to seriously lighten the load.

The biggest expense for the average Canadian family isn’t the home they live in, the food they eat or the clothes they buy. It’s the taxes they pay to all levels of government. More than 40 per cent of the average family’s budget goes to paying taxes, according to the Fraser Institute.

Politicians are taking too much money from Canadians. And their high taxes are driving away investment and jobs.

Canada ranks a dismal 27th out of 38 industrialized countries on individual tax competitiveness, according to the Tax Foundation. Canada ranks 22nd on business tax competitiveness. Canada is behind the United States on both measures.

A little bit of tax relief here and there isn’t going to cut it. Carney’s New Year’s resolution needs to be to embark on a massive tax cutting campaign.

 

Continue Reading

Business

Land use will be British Columbia’s biggest issue in 2026

Published on

By Resource Works

Tariffs may fade. The collision between reconciliation, property rights, and investment will not.

British Columbia will talk about Donald Trump’s tariffs in 2026, and it will keep grinding through affordability. But the issue that will decide whether the province can build, invest, and govern is land use.

The warning signs were there in 2024. Land based industries still generate 12 per cent of B.C.’s GDP, and the province controls more than 90 per cent of the land base, and land policy was already being remade through opaque processes, including government to government tables. When rules for access to land feel unsettled, money flows slow into a trickle.

The Cowichan ruling sends shockwaves

In August 2025, the Cowichan ruling turned that unease into a live wire. The court recognized the Cowichan’s Aboriginal title over roughly 800 acres within Richmond, including lands held by governments and unnamed third parties. It found that grants of fee simple and other interests unjustifiably infringed that title, and declared certain Canada and Richmond titles and interests “defective and invalid,” with those invalidity declarations suspended for 18 months to give governments time to make arrangements.

The reaction has been split. Supporters see a reminder that constitutional rights do not evaporate because land changed hands. Critics see a precedent that leaves private owners exposed, especially because unnamed owners in the claim area were not parties to the case and did not receive formal notice. Even the idea of “coexistence” has become contentious, because both Aboriginal title and fee simple convey exclusive rights to decide land use and capture benefits.

Market chill sets in

McLTAikins translated the risk into advice that landowners and lenders can act on: registered ownership is not immune from constitutional scrutiny, and the land title system cannot cure a constitutional defect where Aboriginal title is established. Their explanation of fee simple reads less like theory than a due diligence checklist that now reaches beyond the registry.

By December, the market was answering. National Post columnist Adam Pankratz reported that an industrial landowner within the Cowichan title area lost a lender and a prospective tenant after a $35 million construction loan was pulled. He also described a separate Richmond hotel deal where a buyer withdrew after citing precedent risk, even though the hotel was not within the declared title lands. His case that uncertainty is already changing behaviour is laid out in Montrose.

Caroline Elliott captured how quickly court language moved into daily life after a City Richmond letter warned some owners that their title might be compromised. Whatever one thinks of that wording, it pushed land law out of the courtroom and into the mortgage conversation.

Mining and exploration stall

The same fault line runs through the critical minerals push. A new mineral claims regime now requires consultation before claims are approved, and critics argue it slows early stage exploration and forces prospectors to reveal targets before they can secure rights. Pankratz made that critique earlier, in his argument about mineral staking.

Resource Works, summarising AME feedback on Mineral Tenure Act modernisation, reported that 69.5 per cent of respondents lacked confidence in proposed changes, and that more than three quarters reported increased uncertainty about doing business in B.C. The theme is not anti consultation. It is that process, capacity, and timelines decide whether consultation produces partnership or paralysis.

Layered on top is the widening fight over UNDRIP implementation and DRIPA. Geoffrey Moyse, KC, called for repeal in a Northern Beat essay on DRIPA, arguing that Section 35 already provides the constitutional framework and that trying to operationalise UNDRIP invites litigation and uncertainty.

Tariffs and housing will still dominate headlines. But they are downstream of land. Until B.C. offers a stable bargain over who can do what, where, and on what foundation, every other promise will be hostage to the same uncertainty. For a province still built on land based wealth, Resource Works argues in its institutional history that the resource economy cannot be separated from land rules. In 2026, that is the main stage.

Resource Works News

Continue Reading

Trending

X