Connect with us

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

Digital ID

The Global Push for Government Mandated Digital IDs And Why You Should Worry

Published on

From StosselTV

Countries all over the world are imposing digital IDs. They tie your identity to everything you do. Spain’s Prime Minister wants “An end to anonymity online!”

Tech privacy expert Naomi Brockwell ‪@NaomiBrockwellTV‬ warns that’s dangerous. “Privacy is not about hiding,” she tells Stossel TV producer Kristin Tokarev. “It’s about an individual’s right to decide for themselves who gets access to their data. A Digital ID… will strip individuals of that choice.”

The new government mandated digital IDs aren’t just a digital version of your driver’s license or passport. “It connects everything,” Brockwell explains. “Your financial decisions, to your social media posts, your likes, the things that you’re watching, places that you’re going… Everything you say will be tied back to who you are.”

And once everything runs through a single government ID, access to services becomes something you need permission for. That’s already a reality in China where citizens are tracked, scored, and punished for “bad” behavior.

Brockwell warns the western world is “skyrocketing in that direction.” She says Americans need to push back now.

———

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

———

Continue Reading

International

China Stages Massive Live-Fire Encirclement Drill Around Taiwan as Washington and Japan Fortify

Published on

Sam Cooper's avatar Sam Cooper

Taiwan says 89 Chinese military aircraft and 28 PLA Navy and coast guard vessels surged into the island’s air and maritime approaches.

Following massive military sales from Washington to Taiwan and rapidly scaled defensive preparations from Japan, Beijing on Monday launched a sweeping show-of-force including live-fire activity around Taiwan.

The encirclement-style operation brought 89 Chinese military aircraft and 28 PLA Navy and coast guard vessels into the waters and skies around the island, one of the heaviest single-day tallies reported in more than a year.

Taiwan’s Presidential Office condemned the operation as a “unilateral provocation” that destabilizes regional peace, while stressing that Taiwan’s security agencies had “complete situational awareness” and had made preparations. Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defense said it activated an emergency response posture and conducted immediate readiness drills.

Beijing, for its part, framed the action as a warning—an operation the PLA’s Eastern Theater Command dubbed “Justice Mission 2025,” involving the army, navy, air force, and rocket force, with designated zones for live-fire activity and sea-and-airspace restrictions.

Global coverage described the drills as rehearsing the mechanics of isolation: blockade-style pressure against key approaches and ports, integrated sea-air patrols, and “deterrence” aimed at what the PLA calls “external interference.”

In a statement circulated by former Taiwanese foreign minister Joseph Wu, now head of the nation’s national security council, the message from Taipei was readiness to deploy force.

“As China ramps up military threats against Taiwan, our armed forces are conducting Rapid Response Exercises in response,” Wu stated Monday morning. “We remain resolute and unafraid. We’ll defend our sovereignty and democracy at all times.”

Across international coverage, analysts assessed Beijing’s actions as escalation through rehearsal, designed to demonstrate a capacity to encircle Taiwan, with live-fire elements and disruption to regional routes. Coverage also emphasized the “stern warning” language aimed at “Taiwan independence” forces and foreign actors, and Taiwan’s elevated alert posture.

The choreography of this operation matters as much as the raw numbers.

The PLA appears to be practicing the operational geometry of denying outside forces access—the kind of posture meant to complicate U.S. and allied intervention in a blockade or assault scenario. That emphasis has been widely noted in contemporaneous coverage, including reporting that the Eastern Theater Command’s messaging explicitly framed the drill as “deterrence” against “external interference.”

This helps explain why the drill lands amid a knot of accelerating pressures.

A number of analysts speculated that Washington’s major arms package and Japan’s “re-militarization”—Tokyo’s rapid defense buildup in response to Beijing’s expanding military footprint—now feed into an escalating drill cycle in which China aims to demonstrate that outside support can be deterred, delayed, or priced prohibitively high.

One clear trigger is the Trump administration’s newly announced $11.1 billion arms package for Taiwan, which Beijing cast as proof of U.S. “interference.”

Another is Japan.

Regional reporting and analysis have framed the drill as a warning shot aimed not only at Taipei but at the alliance architecture around it—especially as Japanese leaders and planners speak more openly about a “Taiwan contingency” and expand defense spending and capabilities that Beijing portrays as destabilizing.

A third is the longer arc Beijing itself has helped set.

U.S. officials have repeatedly stated their assessment that Xi Jinping has directed the PLA to be capable of taking Taiwan by force by 2027—a milestone that continues to shape planning assumptions across the region.

In reporting The Bureau gathered during a September 2023 visit to Taiwan, Taiwanese military experts and officials warned that Beijing’s pressure campaign had reached a new plateau: Chinese aircraft and vessels were crossing into—and remaining in—Taiwan’s territory longer, in actions they described as cognitive warfare designed to erode the public’s will to resist.

“China makes many excuses to conduct military exercises around Taiwan, and I don’t think this is only political,” said Dr. Tzu-Chieh Hung of the Institute for National Defense Security Research, a think tank funded by Taiwan’s government. “I think they are expanding the area of their military operations.”

“We think they are trying to create a new normal, when we will become numb to their actions, and make it a fait accompli,” another senior Taiwanese official told The Bureau.

Those warnings sit directly beneath Monday’s encirclement-style operation. Beyond the raw tallies—89 aircraft and 28 PLA Navy and coast guard vessels—Taiwan’s defense community sees a pattern of repeated rehearsals that stretch time, distance, and ambiguity, steadily conditioning the region to accept blockade-style actions as irreversible.

Yet the fatalism that Taiwan cannot be defended has not been the conclusion in major U.S. war-game work—and Washington’s $11-billion Taiwan arms package signals an intent to strengthen deterrence.

Back in 2023, a widely cited wargaming study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies found Taiwan could repel a Chinese invasion—if Taiwan is prepared to fight immediately, and the United States and Japan move fast to deliver overwhelming air and missile firepower against the fleets that would attempt a blockade and landing.

“There is no question, two years ago most people would have said China has the ability to conquer Taiwan in a fait accompli,” Mark Cancian, one of the study’s authors, told The Bureau in 2023. “But we showed that is not true.”

“The Chinese defensive bubble at the start of the war is so strong, that Taiwan needs what it has to fight with for the first month or two,” Cancian said. “And the United States has to participate en masse and quickly. Japan must at least provide base capacity for U.S. forces, and Taiwan must defend itself.”

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

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

Continue Reading

Trending

X