Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Opinion

Trudeau’s Winnipeg Whitewash – A Masterclass in Diversion and Disconnection

Published

2 years ago

12 minute read

From The Opposition with Dan Knight

As Canada grapples with soaring housing costs and a quality of life crisis, the Prime Minister’s narrative on immigration & multicultural success stories clashes with the lived realities of Canadians

As some of you enjoyed the comfort of Family Day, perhaps some of you noticed Justin Trudeau making the rounds in Winnipeg – (Justin Trudeau Fireside Chat at Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce – February 16, 2024), where he found quite the fan in Loren Remillard of the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce. It seems Remillard was all too eager to extend a metaphorical hand, fishing for tax dollars to prop up their projects.

Oh, let’s dissect the masterful art of political deflection and diversion, shall we? Justin Trudeau, spun a narrative so disconnected from the reality Canadians live in, it’s almost an art form. He lauds Toronto and Vancouver as paragons of multicultural success, cities thriving under the weight of their diversity. But here’s the catch folks—the reality on the ground, as reported by Stats Canada, tells a story that’s anything but rosy for the residents of these supposed utopias.

When we turn our gaze to the real impact of his government’s immigration policies on the ground, the picture is starkly different. Toronto and Vancouver, the benchmarks of Trudeau’s immigration success story, are in fact cities where residents report a lower quality of life than their provincial counterparts. Why? Because amidst the fanfare of diversity and inclusion, the basic needs of the citizens—like feeling a sense of belonging, life satisfaction, and mental health—are being sidelined.

Let’s not forget the elephant in the room Trudeau casually mentioned—2 million temporary residents flooding into Canada. This isn’t just a number; it’s a tsunami of demand in addition to the Liberal 500k target per year of permanent resident hitting a housing market already gasping for air, driving rents and shelter costs to astronomical heights. And Trudeau’s response? A shrug of the shoulders and a diversion to talk about measures with Mexico or the plight of international students. While these issues merit attention, they dance around the core issue: a government more obsessed with its global image than the welfare of its citizens.

The audacity to claim that Toronto and Vancouver are thriving under his policies, while Stats Canada directly contradicts this with evidence of declining quality of life, is nothing short of political theater. It’s a sleight of hand designed to distract from the harsh reality—that his government’s approach to immigration and temporary residents is contributing to a crisis of affordability and well-being in our major cities.

But amidst the spectacle, Trudeau touched on a subject that should raise eyebrows across the nation: On how his government is using immigration as a tool to “grow the economy.” Now, let’s pause for a moment to digest that, shall we?

Diving deeper, a fascinating exchange caught my ear during a Finance Committee meeting FINA-124 -February 1, 2024, where Tiff Macklem of the Bank of Canada offered some candid insights. When prodded by Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan, Macklem conceded that the government’s spending spree and the Bank’s efforts to stabilize our economy were essentially at loggerheads. Here we have the Trudeau administration, pushing fiscal policies that seem to sprint in the opposite direction of monetary sanity.

Macklem went on, outlining that yes, government spending is contributing to growth, but let’s be clear about the kind of growth we’re talking about here. It’s one that barely keeps pace with population increases, teetering on the edge of potential. And with government spending poised to climb even higher, we’re flirting dangerously close to exacerbating inflation, rather than reining it in.

Senior Deputy Governor Carolyn Rogers chimed in with a stark reminder of the housing market’s woes. Despite interest rate hikes, which traditionally cool down housing prices, Canada’s chronic housing shortage keeps prices stubbornly high. The result? A housing affordability crisis that’s squeezing Canadians tighter than ever, exacerbated by an immigration policy that is throwing fuel on the fire of demand without addressing the urgent need for supply.

This is the picture Trudeau’s policies paint for Canada: a nation where the cost of living climbs ever higher, where the dream of homeownership slips further away for the average citizen, and where economic growth strategies seem disconnected from the realities on the ground. It’s high time for a reality check, a moment to ask ourselves whether these policies truly serve the best interest of Canadians or merely the political agenda of those in power.

Indeed, the root of the issue is staring us right in the face—supply problems are driving costs through the roof. Yet, it seems as though there’s a conspiracy of silence in the House of Commons; no one dares to utter the truth that unchecked immigration is exacerbating these supply woes, sending shelter costs soaring. Let’s dive into the latest from Stats Canada to unravel the narrative everyone is thriving under Justin Trudeau.

First off, let’s talk about renters. According to this report, if you’re renting, your quality of life isn’t just on the lower rung; it’s plummeting. Renters are staggering under the weight of financial pressures unheard of for homeowners, feeling the pinch of record-low vacancy rates and rent hikes that would make your head spin. Over 15 percentage points more likely to struggle financially and over 11 points less likely to experience life satisfaction.

But the plot thickens when we look at the younger Canadians, those aged 15 to 54. They’re caught in a vise, with life satisfaction and mental health scores that trail behind their older counterparts. The dream of home ownership? A mirage for many, as they navigate a landscape where the very idea of paying off a mortgage seems like a relic of a bygone era. And let’s not even get started on the economic tightrope walked by residents of Toronto and Vancouver, cities where the cost of living soars as high as the skyscrapers dotting their skylines.

Now, Trudeau’s government might have you believe that policies are in place to bridge these divides, to bolster the quality of life for all Canadians. But let’s be real—the evidence suggests otherwise. With renters and younger generations buckling under financial strains and cities like Toronto and Vancouver becoming enclaves of the unaffordable, the narrative being spun by the current administration seems more fiction than fact.

Consider the financial strain laid bare by these statistics: a significant portion of Canadians are finding it increasingly difficult to meet their financial needs, with shelter costs consuming a lion’s share of their income.

In a landscape marked by disparities in quality of life we’re left with a pressing question: where does the path forward lie?

 

Let’s cut to the chase, folks. The latest 338 polling data isn’t just a blip on the political radar; it’s a resounding bell tolling for the end of the Liberals’ reign, inching closer to losing their official party status. Why, you might ask? It’s simple: Justin Trudeau’s legacy is one of profound ineptitude, a legacy that has systematically failed Canadians at every turn. When Trudeau touts his housing policies, claiming to increase rentals, remember the cold, hard facts from Stats Canada—he’s not building homes; he’s crafting a nation with a diminished quality of life. That’s the Trudeau vision for Canada.

And let’s not overlook the audacity of his actions—jetting off to Jamaica with a hefty $162,000 bill footed by you, the taxpayer. It seems Trudeau’s concern for your quality of life evaporates faster than a Liberal MP can devour lobster in Malaysia. Meanwhile, ordinary Canadians are left to scrounge at food banks. But hey, as long as the political elite get their fill, right?

SNC-Lavalin was just the beginning, the canary in the coal mine signaling the avalanche of corruption set to spill out from Trudeau’s government. WE Charity, the Trudeau Foundation, Chinese interference, ArriveScam… the list of scandals under Trudeau’s watch is as long as it is disgraceful. These aren’t mere footnotes in history; they’re the defining features of his tenure.

Remember the uproar over a $16 orange juice under Harper? That was considered the height of scandal, a benchmark of accountability. Fast forward to today, and this government can’t even spell ‘ethics,’ let alone practice it.

So, my fellow Canadians, as we look ahead to the next election, we’re presented with a golden opportunity—a chance to reset the narrative and send a clear message to the liberal elites that we’ve had enough of their disdain for the average citizen. I, for one, will be cheering on the red wedding of Canadian politics because the liberal standard is not just detrimental to your well-being; it’s an affront to all of Canada. It’s time to say enough is enough and reclaim the Canada we know and love—a Canada of integrity, accountability, and true north strong and free.

Related Topics:

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

More from this author
Alberta / 4 hours ago

Alberta Next Panel calls to reform how Canada works

Agriculture / 5 hours ago

End Supply Management—For the Sake of Canadian Consumers

International / 20 hours ago

Australian PM booed at Bondi vigil as crowd screams “shame!”

Environment

Canada’s river water quality strong overall although some localized issues persist

Published on December 22, 2025

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Annika Segelhorst and Elmira Aliakbari

Canada’s rivers are vital to our environment and economy. Clean freshwater is essential to support recreation, agriculture and industry, an to sustain suitable habitat for wildlife. Conversely, degraded freshwater can make it harder to maintain safe drinking water and can harm aquatic life. So, how healthy are Canada’s rivers today?

To answer that question, Environment Canada uses an index of water quality to assess freshwater quality at monitoring stations across the country. In total, scores are available for 165 monitoring stations, jointly maintained by Environment Canada and provincial authorities, from 17 in Newfoundland and Labrador, to 8 in Saskatchewan and 20 in British Columbia.

This index works like a report card for rivers, converting water test results into scores from 0 to 100. Scientists sample river water three or more times per year at fixed locations, testing indicators such as oxygen levels, nutrients and chemical levels. These measurements are then compared against national and provincial guidelines that determine the ability of a waterway to support aquatic life.

Scores are calculated based on three factors: how many guidelines are exceeded, how often they are exceeded, and by how much they are exceeded. A score of 95-100 is “excellent,” 80-94 is “good,” 65-79 is “fair,” 45-64 is “marginal” and a score below 45 is “poor.” The most recent scores are based on data from 2021 to 2023.

Among 165 river monitoring sites across the country, the average score was 76.7. Sites along four major rivers earned a perfect score: the Northeast Magaree River (Nova Scotia), the Restigouche River (New Brunswick), the South Saskatchewan River (Saskatchewan) and the Bow River (Alberta). The Bayonne River, a tributary of the St. Lawrence River near Berthierville, Quebec, scored the lowest (33.0).

Overall, between 2021 and 2023, 83.0 per cent of monitoring sites across the country recorded fair to excellent water quality. This is a strong positive signal that most of Canada’s rivers are in generally healthy environmental condition.

A total of 13.3 per cent of stations were deemed to be marginal, that is, they received a score of 45-64 on the index. Only 3.6 per cent of monitoring sites fell into the poor category, meaning that severe degradation was limited to only a few sites (6 of 165).

Monitoring sites along waterways with relatively less development in the river’s headwaters and those with lower population density tended to earn higher scores than sites with developed land uses. However, among the 11 river monitoring sites that rated “excellent,” 8 were situated in areas facing a combination of pressures from nearby human activities that can influence water quality. This indicates the resilience of Canada’s river ecosystems, even in areas facing a combination of multiple stressors from urban runoff, agriculture, and industrial activities where waterways would otherwise be expected to be the most polluted.

Poor or marginal water quality was relatively more common in monitoring sites located along the St. Lawrence River and its major tributaries and near the Great Lakes compared to other regions. Among all sites in the marginal or poor category, 50 per cent were in this area. The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence region is one of the most population-dense and extensively developed parts of Canada, supporting a mix of urban, agricultural, and industrial land uses. These pressures can introduce harmful chemical contaminants and alter nutrient balances in waterways, impairing ecosystem health.

In general, monitoring sites categorized as marginal or poor tended to be located near intensive agriculture and industrial activities. However, it’s important to reiterate that only 28 stations representing 17.0 per cent of all monitoring stations were deemed to be marginal or poor.

Provincial results vary, as shown in the figure below. Water quality scores in Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan and Alberta were, on average, 80 points or higher during the period from 2021 to 2023, indicating that water quality rarely departed from natural or desirable levels.

Rivers sites in Nova Scotia, Ontario, Manitoba and B.C. each had average scores between 74 and 78 points, suggesting occasional departures from natural or desirable levels.

Finally, Quebec’s average river water quality score was 64.5 during the 2021 to 2023 period. This score indicates that water quality departed from ideal conditions more frequently in Quebec than in other provinces, especially compared to provinces like Alberta, Saskatchewan and P.E.I. where no sites rated below “fair.”

Overall, these results highlight Canada’s success in maintaining a generally high quality of water in our rivers. Most waterways are in good shape, though some regions—especially near the Great Lakes and along the St. Lawrence River Valley—continue to face pressures from the combined effects of population growth and intensive land use.

Continue Reading

Agriculture

End Supply Management—For the Sake of Canadian Consumers

Published on December 22, 2025

By

This is a special preview article from the:

By Gwyn Morgan

U.S. President Donald Trump’s trade policy is often chaotic and punitive. But on one point, he is right: Canada’s agricultural supply management system has to go. Not because it is unfair to the United States, though it clearly is, but because it punishes Canadians. Supply management is a government-enforced price-fixing scheme that limits consumer choice, inflates grocery bills, wastes food, and shields a small, politically powerful group of producers from competition—at the direct expense of millions of households.

And yet Ottawa continues to support this socialist shakedown. Last week, Prime Minister Mark Carney told reporters supply management was “not on the table” in negotiations for a renewed United States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement, despite U.S. negotiators citing it as a roadblock to a new deal.

Supply management relies on a web of production quotas, fixed farmgate prices, strict import limits, and punitive tariffs that can approach 300 percent. Bureaucrats decide how much milk, chicken, eggs, and poultry Canadians farmers produce and which farmers can produce how much. When officials misjudge demand—as they recently did with chicken and eggs—farmers are legally barred from responding. The result is predictable: shortages, soaring prices, and frustrated consumers staring at emptier shelves and higher bills.

This is not a theoretical problem. Canada’s most recent chicken production cycle, ending in May 2025, produced one of the worst supply shortfalls in decades. Demand rose unexpectedly, but quotas froze supply in place. Canadian farmers could not increase production. Instead, consumers paid more for scarce domestic poultry while last-minute imports filled the gap at premium prices. Eggs followed a similar pattern, with shortages triggering a convoluted “allocation” system that opened the door to massive foreign imports rather than empowering Canadian farmers to respond.

Over a century of global experience has shown that central economic planning fails. Governments are simply not good at “matching” supply with demand. There is no reason to believe Ottawa’s attempts to manage a handful of food categories should fare any better. And yet supply management persists, even as its costs mount.

Those costs fall squarely on consumers. According to a Fraser Institute estimate, supply management adds roughly $375 a year to the average Canadian household’s grocery bill. Because lower-income families spend a much higher proportion of their income on food, the burden falls most heavily on them.
The system also strangles consumer choice. European countries produce thousands of varieties of high-quality cheeses at prices far below what Canadians pay for largely industrial domestic products. But our import quotas are tiny, and anything above them is hit with tariffs exceeding 245 percent. As a result, imported cheeses can cost $60 per kilogram or more in Canadian grocery stores. In Switzerland, one of the world’s most eye-poppingly expensive countries, where a thimble-sized coffee will set you back $9, premium cheeses are barely half the price you’ll find at Loblaw or Safeway.

Canada’s supply-managed farmers defend their monopoly by insisting it provides a “fair return” for famers, guarantees Canadians have access to “homegrown food” and assures the “right amount of food is produced to meet Canadian needs.” Is there a shred of evidence Canadians are being denied the “right amount” of bread, tuna, asparagus or applesauce? Of course not; the market readily supplies all these and many thousands of other non-supply-managed foods.

Like all price-fixing systems, Canada’s supply management provides only the illusion of stability and security. We’ve seen above what happens when production falls short. But perversely, if a farmer manages to get more milk out of his cows than his quota, there’s no reward: the excess must be
dumped. Last year alone, enough milk was discarded to feed 4.2 million people.

Over time, supply management has become less about farming and more about quota ownership. Artificial scarcity has turned quotas into highly valuable assets, locking out young farmers and rewarding incumbents.

Why does such a dysfunctional system persist? The answer is politics. Supply management is of outsized importance in Quebec, where producers hold a disproportionate share of quotas and are numerous enough to swing election results in key ridings. Federal parties of all stripes have learned the cost of crossing this lobby. That political cowardice now collides with reality. The USMCA is heading toward mandatory renegotiation, and supply management is squarely in Washington’s sights. Canada depends on tariff-free access to the U.S. market for hundreds of billions of dollars in exports. Trading away a deeply-flawed system to secure that access would make economic sense.

Instead, Ottawa has doubled down. Not just with Carney’s remarks last week but with Bill C-202, which makes it illegal for Canadian ministers to reduce tariffs or expand quotas on supply-managed goods in future trade talks. Formally signalling that Canada’s negotiating position is hostage to a tiny domestic lobby group is reckless, and weakens Canada’s hand before talks even begin.

Food prices continue to rise faster than inflation. Forecasts suggest the average family will spend $1,000 more on groceries next year alone. Supply management is not the only cause, but it remains a major one. Ending it would lower prices, expand choice, reduce waste, and reward entrepreneurial farmers willing to compete.

If Donald Trump can succeed in forcing supply management onto the negotiating table, he will be doing Canadian consumers—and Canadian agriculture—a favour our own political class has long refused to deliver.

The original, full-length version of this article was recently published in C2C Journal. Gwyn Morgan is a retired business leader who was a director of five global corporations.

Continue Reading

Trending

X