Connect with us

National

NDP leader Jagmeet Singh pulls support from Trudeau’s Liberals

Published

4 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

“The Liberals are too weak, too selfish and too beholden to corporate interests to stop the Conservatives and their plans to cut. But the NDP can.”

New Democratic Party leader Jagmeet Singh announced today that his deal to keep Trudeau and his Liberal Party in power is ‘done,’ leading to speculation as to whether an election may be called before it is mandated in October 2025.

The head of the New Democratic Party (NDP), Jagmeet Singh, today announced he is pulling his official support for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberals, meaning there is now a possibility a fall election could be held should a non-confidence vote pass in the House of Commons.  

“The deal is done. The Liberals are too weak, too selfish and too beholden to corporate interests to stop the Conservatives and their plans to cut. But the NDP can,” wrote Singh on X this afternoon. 

“Big corporations and CEOs have had their governments. It’s the people’s time.” 

Singh also posted a video to go along with his X statement, saying, “Justin Trudeau has proven again and again he will always cave to corporate greed. The Liberals have let people down. They don’t deserve another chance from Canadians.” 

He then took a shot at Canada’s Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre, calling him an even bigger “threat” than Trudeau.  

Before today, Singh had in place an informal coalition with the Trudeau government that began last year. This agreement has until now kept the Liberals in power until the next election, which is scheduled for the fall of 2025. 

It is expected that later today Singh will lay out in detail what his pulling out of the deal with Trudeau will fully entail. Some pundits have speculated that he may still support the Liberals on most bills, which would keep the Liberals in power.  

Late last month, leader of Canada’s Conservative Party Pierre Poilievre called on Singh to pull his support for Trudeau’s Liberals, so that an election could be held.  

As reported by LifeSiteNews, the Trudeau Liberals were hoping to delay the 2025 federal election by a few extra days in what many see as a stunt to try and secure pensions for MPs who are projected to lose their seats. Approximately 80 MPs would qualify for their pensions should they sit as MPs until at least October 27, 2025, which is the newly proposed election date. The election date as it stands now is set to happen on October 20, 2025.  

LifeSiteNews, in a recent opinion piece by this writer, observed that most of the recent polling shows that if a federal election were held today, “Pierre Poilievre’s Conservative Party would not only mop the floor of the House of Commons of most Liberal MPs but wash the windows of the house on Parliament Hill as well with a tint of conservative blue.”  

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

Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Ottawa Should Think Twice Before Taxing Churches

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Pierre Gilbert

Ottawa has churches in its crosshairs. A federal fiscal squeeze could strip religious organizations of tax breaks, crippling Canada’s community backbone

Proposals to revoke charitable status for faith-based groups would devastate the community services thousands rely on

Canada’s churches, synagogues, temples, mosques and charities like the Salvation Army are at the heart of our communities, offering hope, support and services to thousands. But a storm is brewing in Ottawa that could strip these vital institutions of their charitable status, threatening their very survival—and much of our country’s social fabric.

The 2025 House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, which makes recommendations to shape the federal budget, dropped a bombshell in its prebudget report, an influential document often used to set priorities for the year ahead. It included two recommendations that could hit religious organizations hard.

The first is that the government revoke the charitable status of pro-life groups. These agencies are being singled out because of the support they provide to pregnant women who do not wish to abort their children.

The second is that the “advancement of religion,” one of the four long-standing categories under which Canadian charities qualify for registration, be eliminated. The recommendation was based on a single proposal by the B.C. Humanist Association, a provincial nonprofit organization in British Columbia that represents atheists, humanists, agnostics and non-religious people.

If included in the next federal budget, these ideas would strip religious organizations across Canada of tax exemptions, the ability to issue donation receipts and, if provinces follow suit, property tax breaks.

Why target these groups?

Ottawa desperately needs the cash. The federal government is on a spending binge of gargantuan proportions with no end in sight. Canada’s balance sheet is drenched in red ink, with no credible plan to address the structural budget deficit, which the C.D. Howe Institute, a Toronto-based policy think tank, estimates will reach a record $92 billion this year. While the tax exemptions amount to only between $1.7 and $3.2 billion annually, the temptation to grab what it can from churches may prove irresistible.

But it’s not just about the dollars. Religious institutions have increasingly faced criticism from secular voices in Ottawa and academia. The Catholic Church, for example, is still facing harsh criticism over its role in Canada’s residential school system and over recent allegations of unmarked graves of Indigenous children at some schools.

As for Protestant and Evangelical churches, public perception casts these institutions as clashing with modern societal norms. Critics claim that churches opposing abortion or prevailing views on human sexuality should be compelled to align with government policies on these issues.

The message seems to be: shape up or ship out. This isn’t just a policy debate; it’s a cultural attack on institutions that have shaped Canada for generations.

Despite the criticism, there are compelling reasons to preserve the charitable status of religious organizations.

First, a recent study by Cardus, a Canadian faith-based think tank, shows that for every dollar of tax exemption, religious groups deliver $10 in community services.

Second, religious congregations offer substantial intangible benefits of immeasurable value. They foster vibrant communities where individuals find friendship, emotional support and spaces to explore questions of meaning and purpose. They also provide opportunities for people to experience a sense of transcendence and spiritual connection.

When the current focus on materialism comes to an end, as it must, many Canadians will turn to the church for guidance in addressing the most profound questions about human existence.

Ottawa needs to get its fiscal house in order, not raid ours. It’s time for Canadians to speak up. Write to your MP, attend community forums and demand that the charitable status for religious organizations be preserved. Doing so will ensure that churches and other places of worship continue to serve Canadians for generations.

Pierre Gilbert, PhD, is an emeritus associate professor at Canadian Mennonite University and a senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. He is the author of Revoking the Charitable Status for the Advancement of Religion: A Critical Assessment and God Never Meant for Us to Die (2020).

Continue Reading

National

Democracy Watch Renews Push for Independent Prosecutor in SNC-Lavalin Case

Published on

The Opposition with Dan Knight

Dan Knight's avatar Dan Knight

Group says Ontario Crown used “clearly incorrect” legal test to shield Trudeau from private prosecution, calls for independent process free of political ties

Democracy Watch has launched a fresh bid to reopen the door to prosecuting former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau over his alleged role in the 2018 SNC-Lavalin affair, accusing Ontario Crown Counsel of using a legally flawed standard to shut down its private prosecution and continuing what it calls “a smelly cover-up” that began under the Trudeau government.

Read the full press release here

In a new letter sent Wednesday to Ontario Attorney General Doug Downey and Randy Schwartz, the province’s Assistant Deputy Attorney General for Criminal Law, the non-partisan watchdog group is again calling for an independent special prosecutor to review evidence that Trudeau obstructed justice and breached public trust by pressuring then–Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould to intervene in the SNC-Lavalin prosecution seven years ago.

This latest appeal comes after Ontario’s Director of the Complex Prosecutions Bureau, John Corelli, used his authority in September to halt Democracy Watch’s private prosecution before it reached a preliminary “pre-enquête” hearing. In that letter, Corelli said there was “no reasonable prospect the Crown could prove that Mr. Trudeau acted with the requisite criminal intent.”

Democracy Watch disputes that reasoning, arguing it misstates the law.

“Crown prosecutors stopping this prosecution for a legally incorrect reason, just like the RCMP did in addition to suppressing key evidence, amounts to a smelly cover-up,” said Duff Conacher, the group’s co-founder and legal expert. “It shows clearly that Canada does not have independent, effective anti-corruption law enforcement and, as a result, corruption in the highest public offices across the country is effectively legal.”

The group’s new letter marks the second time it has asked Ontario’s Attorney General to intervene. In its first request in March, Democracy Watch urged Downey to establish a non-partisan selection committee to appoint a special prosecutor. Downey’s office declined that request in May.

Now, the group is reiterating the demand, saying the independent prosecutor should be chosen by a committee composed of people with no party ties, working alongside opposition leaders, to ensure public confidence in the process.

Conacher’s team argues that Corelli’s reasoning — that the Crown cannot prove Trudeau acted with “criminal intent” — applies the wrong legal test. In its filings, Democracy Watch cites the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R. v. Beaudry (2007), which clarified that obstruction of justice requires only that an act be done “willfully” to frustrate the course of justice — not that it be done with corrupt or deceitful intent.

“The Supreme Court has already set the threshold,” Conacher said. “Proof of ‘criminal’ intent isn’t required. It’s enough that someone acted willfully to obstruct the process. That’s what the Crown ignored.”

The group also says that the case against Trudeau is unprecedented and cannot be dismissed out of hand without judicial review. It accuses the RCMP of conducting a “negligently weak and incomplete investigation” that left key questions unanswered and accepted the government’s refusal to release Cabinet records from the time.

Democracy Watch’s original filing included testimony and documents obtained from the RCMP after a two-year access battle. It alleges that the Mounties failed to interview key witnesses, including Wilson-Raybould’s chief of staff Jessica Prince and former Liberal minister Jane Philpott, and withheld portions of their answers in documents finally disclosed. The proposed pre-enquête hearing — which Corelli stopped — would have allowed those witnesses to testify under oath and allowed a judge to decide if the evidence was sufficient to proceed.

The group’s case was supported by Wayne Crookes, founder of Integrity B.C., and represented by Jen Danch of Swadron Associates law firm.

Conacher is now urging Ontario’s Attorney General to “do the right thing” and reverse course.

“Canadians can only hope Ontario’s Attorney General will work with opposition party leaders to establish a fully independent committee that will choose a fully independent special prosecutor to review the evidence,” Conacher said.

He also renewed his call for structural reform of Canada’s anti-corruption enforcement, noting that Quebec’s independent anti-corruption police and prosecution units (UPAC) have operated since 2011, while the RCMP remains under the direct control of Cabinet appointees.

“The RCMP lacks independence from the Prime Minister and Cabinet ministers who handpick its leadership,” Conacher said. “They serve at the pleasure of the government, so they are vulnerable to political interference. To ensure integrity, Canada needs a fully independent anti-corruption police force and independent prosecutors.”

Democracy Watch’s campaign underscores a broader concern that the Trudeau-era SNC-Lavalin controversy, which saw Wilson-Raybould’s resignation, Philpott’s exit, and an Ethics Commissioner finding of improper political pressure, has never been subjected to a full criminal review.

For Conacher, the issue is bigger than one case. It’s about restoring the principle that no one, not even a Prime Minister, stands above the law.

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Trending

X