Trudeau Informs Media He Will Run For 4th Term As Prime Minister

To post to facebook, click here:

Evan Solomon: Here’s some rapid fire questions. Three elections, is Justin Trudeau going to run again?

Justin Trudeau: Yes.

Of course he will. With a single word, the fate of our country is laid out before us. The fact that three-time winner Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says he is going to run for office again should surprise no one.

Cultural Action Party often speak of the unprecedented nature of politics in present-day Canada. Here we discover another example. No prime minister in history has ever served four consecutive terms in office.

At the time of Trudeau’s first-term victory in 2015, CAP made a bold prediction: six consecutive terms as prime minister, and Canada will cease to be a democratic country. A 185-151 vote from Parliament this week on the Emergencies Act proves us wrong– it will take less time than originally anticipated.

We did not come up short in the role Covid is playing within the big picture. The pandemic has served as an “elixir of democratic decline.” It’s an all-purpose solution. Covid dissemination has paved the way for an erosion of democratic governance.

In the name of controlling the virus, the Liberals became free to command public adherence to all decisions. The public bent to their will. That is, until the Truckers Convoy came rolling along. Responding to rebellion against neo-authoritarianism, Justin Trudeau seized complete control. Today, citizens who are innocent of commiting crimes are punished for non-compliance. Frozen bank accounts and cancelled insurance policies being two lashes from the authoritarian whip.

In an interview from January 2022, architect of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms Brian Peckford offered an opinion on current affairs:

 “They[Trudeau government] didn’t have the power to override all of our freedoms and rights. The pandemic has shown that they can do things that violate the constitution.”

As far as Mr. Trudeau running for a fourth term, we offer speculation:

It should come as no surprise that our prognosis is not good. There will be a future election, and the winner will be the Liberal Party. At a basic level, the reason is found in government control over our media.

As far as the Conservative Party is concerned, they don’t stand a chance. It matters not which member runs for prime minister. It’s not that the Liberals will defeat them per se. It is because media will crush them absolutely. It’s game over for the Conservative Party, or if they existed, any other challenger. If any consolation exists, it is found in the idea that it is also game over for democratic governance in totality.

We turn to theories purported by political science. A communist country is one in which the general population understand the nature of government. Walk up to the average citizen in China, and tell them they are living in a communist society. A shrug of the shoulders comes forth. “Tell me something I didn’t know” being the general vibe.

In a socialist country, the people are ruled by a communist government– but they don’t know it– yet. We approach the average citizen. “You are living in a communist country,” we proclaim. “Don’t be ridiculous. Our country isn’t communist– you’re an idiot.” Fast-forward a decade, and said individual realizes the fool was correct.

There is only one factor impacting a decision by Justin Trudeau’s to run for a fourth-term. If multiple polls inform him that he can win, he will run. If it is not the case, a substitute will become Liberal Party leader, and they will win. Such pessimism is unpleasant in its conception. The conclusion is based on a simple premise: Canada is today a Liberal dictatorship.

The modus operandi goes like this: continue winning election after election, and one day Canadians will conclude that federal elections have no purpose. Public buy-in is essential. What the schematics call for is agreement from the public– not a confrontation to make it occur. After eight consecutive Liberal Party victories, both government and public agree that elections are futile.

Canada thereby transitions to a dictatorship. The seeds have already been planted. Media is on board. The Conservatives are not going to win the next election, nor any after that.

The goal is not controlling Covid, passing an Emergencies Act, frozen bank accounts, or any other form of organized manipulation. These are merely means to an end. Only time will tell–  one cannot prove or disprove these theories. In CAP’s opinion, the Liberal Party of Canada have all the time in the world to make this situation a reality.

12 thoughts on “Trudeau Informs Media He Will Run For 4th Term As Prime Minister”

  1. Candice Bergen–A wet noodle; not a hammer. Pierre P–Weeks late, and one hundred dollars short. Lots of talk; but he was nowhere to be seen on the streets of Ottawa. Too cold for ya Pierre? didn’t want to get your manicured hands dirty? Poilievre–A comfortable millionaire; a career politician; with a gift for making (toothless) speeches. If this is a preview of a “Conservative” government; the fat lady has already sung. As one person has said; Canada has a Uniparty. Different only by a matter of degrees.

    • We must do what the citizens of Ukraine have done numerous times…a revolution to overcome the corrupt government…if he runs and wins it could only be through election fraud…he was voted most hated man in the world by most of the world…or we don’t vote at all because there will not be anyone to get our country back except the People’s Party of Canada.

  2. There seems to be no commentary on the WEF affiliations and how that in itself goes against the very fundamental business of governance of the country. Seems to be very strong and wide spread awakening to this little tidbit which has escaped so many people, until now.

    In terms of some still sleepy people, like the recent debates over 100% uptake of vaccinations, there will always be people who do not commit to the general viewpoints of most educated or well meaning Canadians. But… there seems to be a massive turn in how people see the future of Canada and they don’t like what and who are in power.


  4. I do not have a lot of faith in another election as I feel that last one was not won fairly….they have already found and admitted to not counting any of the mail in votes……so now that, that is known how does that make you feel. Knowing that we use the Dominion Voting Systems which were proven to be manipulated from outside sources…….do you think that they are going to let the narcasistic, sociopathic, little man in short boy pants…..spoiled trust fund baby, drama teacher willing to please Daddy Klaus get voted out…..they need him in place to complete the Agenda 2030……I wish people would wake up to the spoiled little narcasist and the puppeteers….WEF……how does that go?????? Govern Me Harder Daddy!

  5. There is one shining light in all of this.

    To defeat Trudeau (and believe it or not we are right back in the game), you cannot engage him directly. You cannot confront him or charge him head-on. (Stratagem #2, in other words.) You cannot use the kind of vocabulary around him that you can around us. And you have to think just like he does.

    The new leader of your party has to be someone his war room has no idea exists. It has to be someone they haven’t had to deal with before. His birthplace and riding have to be east of the M postal code zone.

    Fortunately, the Conservative party can lay claim to such a candidate. Someone who’s actually been on the battle lines (as the party wingman) and therefore understands exactly how the game works. Someone that won’t be easily drawn into Trudeau’s little game like Poilievre and Bergen have.

    Peter MacKay.

  6. The New Government of Canada

    The government of Canada no longer functions efficiently. It is overly large and spends enormous amounts of money on maintaining itself and funding partisan promises in the hopes of being re-elected. We regularly hear endless streams of political rhetoric all seemingly based in emotional attempts to sway the voting public. What we need is the truth. Truth is an agreement with reality. It is fact. We need the whole truth with just the facts so that we can make a logical decision on voting day without succumbing to the desired agenda of a political party. One would hope that the priority of each Member of Parliament is to act on behalf of their constituents but in the world of partisan politics they are more likely loyal to their party first.

    An election victory is a hard won thing. It takes organization and money. In order to have the backing of a political party for an election campaign you have to prove you are loyal to that party. Members of Parliament may get their salaries from our tax revenue along with their benefits, expense accounts and a 70% percent pension after eight years of work, but if they want to receive money and other support from their party, they have to demonstrate they trust in the honesty and truth of their party leaders. They are required to be loyal to the party.

    I no longer believe we are best represented by partisan politics. Our politicians are using political rhetoric to rally the support of their followers instead of using the facts to rally the support of everyone. Political rhetoric is not honorable and it is not fair. It is used to distort the truth in order to create bias. Complete honesty requires being frank or open no matter what the personal cost. Any politician who balks at telling the complete and honest truth is keeping secrets for their own benefit or the benefit of the party. Secrets are for security.

    Members of a political party are taught the party doctrine. They are expected to have an unshaken adherence to the principles and beliefs which are formalized in their dogma and the party’s dogma is to be accepted as authoritative. Hence, Prime Ministers regularly require their members to vote the party line during non-confidence votes. A failure to do so indicates a loss of faith with the party and risks expulsion which would result in a loss of financial support. Our local representatives do not have to vote the way we want them to vote.


    In today’s fast paced multi-media world, very few of us seem to be taking the time to evaluate our local candidates during an election. This would take some effort on our part. Instead, we regularly accept being exposed to sound bites of a party leader’s campaign that suit the bias of that particular media outlet. This is intended to influence our choice at the local level. As a result, we seem to be basing our votes on who we want as a Prime Minister instead of who would be the best representative of our home riding. We need to remind ourselves that we do not cast a vote for the position of Prime Minister.

    In a non-partisan government, the Prime Minister would be chosen from among the elected members by the elected members. They should be required to choose the person most able to lead our government and our nation in an honorable way. Being honorable requires a level of behavior that is fast disappearing from our society. If you want to be honorable, you have to accept accountability for everything you say and everything you do. You have to be respectful and courteous in your speech. And you have to have integrity which means do not lie, cheat or steal. Your reputation is everything whether you are a public figure or not but especially if you are a Member of Parliament.

    We have a generation of politicians who seem to play to the cameras. The questions they ask in the House are often broad based and accusative. The response to that type of question is usually vague and defensive. They are wasting our time and our money. The more polarized our government becomes, the less work they can accomplish. If you do not have anything good to say, stick to the facts. Ask clear and direct questions in a courteous way and you should get clear and factual answers. If not, simply pursue the facts. We need compromise in order to get our business done. We need independent politicians doing the business of their constituents instead of faithful politicians doing the business of their political party.


    We live with non-partisan governments every day. Our municipal governments are non-partisan. Toronto, with a population approaching three million, has a non-partisan government. Nunavut and the Northwest Territories have non-partisan governments. Even the Nebraska Legislature in the United States, of all places, is non-partisan. Since non-partisan governments tend to be used in places with smaller populations, we can assume that a smaller government is more affordable.

    Our government is unnecessarily large. We have 338 Members of Parliament for a population of less than 37 million. That is roughly one Member of Parliament for every 100,000 people. We also have 105 Senators whose role is to provide a sober second thought to Parliament while representing six regionally different areas of this country. That represents, on average, over seventeen Senators per region though they are not divided evenly. Those numbers equate to one member of the Legislature for roughly 83,500 people. The financial load per capita is enormous.

    Our current government is based on a very old model of government called the Westminster System. It was established in the United Kingdom and has its roots in the Magna Carta of 1215. It was adopted here in 1867 when the Dominion of Canada only included Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. We have come a long way from the time when your main source of information was the local newspaper and the fastest way to communicate was by telegraph. Since then we have added provinces and territories and high speed communications using satellites and cell phones. What we need in this modern world is a Non-Partisan Democracy with many fewer Members of the Legislature whose focus is on national issues only.

    A Federal Government web site lists their main responsibilities as follows:
    • national defense
    • foreign affairs
    • employment insurance
    • banking
    • federal taxes
    • the post office
    • fisheries
    • shipping, railways, telephones and pipelines
    • Indigenous lands and rights
    • criminal law
    Most of our other governmental affairs are the responsibility of our provincial and municipal governments and yet we have 38 Ministers, a Prime Minister, 299 other Members of Parliament and 105 Senators. In some cases, the responsibilities of a Ministry overlap the responsibilities of other levels of government making one of those departments unnecessary.

    Most of us will communicate with our local representative remotely, if we communicate with them at all. I suspect most of the responses are prepared and sent by staff members. With remote communications being the accepted norm, we no longer need a high density of representation for national issues. If we had a non-partisan government, we would not need an official opposition. We should however keep an oversight committee to prevent corruption.

    What if we had one Member of Parliament for every one million people? Then we would have only 37 Members of Parliament who would all be non-partisan. They would each have a Ministry to manage and a constituency to be responsible to for national concerns only. This is not an overwhelming task considering we have career Civil Servants who do most of the work. Think of it this way, the Ministers would be the head of a department and collectively act as the board of directors. The Prime Minister would act as a CEO.

    After an election, the first duty of the 37 successful candidates would be to choose the most honorable and capable member from their group to be Prime Minister. The second duty would be to assign a Ministry to each of the remaining 36 Members of Parliament. With Honorable Members and a strong Civil Service, this would work. Without the interference of partisan politics it would work efficiently.

    Bills will be brought forward for constructive debate. Facts and figures will be pursued. Consequences for the nation will be determined and votes will be made. All Members will be required to cast a vote for yes or no on a bill. If they wish to abstain then they must resign their seat and they will be replaced. We would have 37 seats until the population climbed to 39 million people. Then two new seats would be created. We would always maintain an odd number of seats so no vote would end in a tie.


    We have a kind of representation by population in this country but it is modified by formulas that seem antiquated in a modern world where we are all supposed to be treated equally. We are not. The Greater Toronto Area has one MP for every 240,000 people. Prince Edward Island has one MP for every 39,000 people and they have four Senators. Our four maritime provinces combined have thirty Senators to represent their region while the four western provinces have only twenty-four. Is it any wonder that regions of this country often express feelings of alienation? It would appear that representation by population has not kept up with population migration.

    In the new government, representation by population will have Ontario holding 14 out of 37 seats in the House of Commons. However, their population is approaching 15 million out the country’s nearly 37 million people. That is a fair representation for the House of Commons. That is why we need a Senate that represents regional interests more evenly. We cannot have laws passed at a national level that will cause harm to any region of the country. Compromise is necessary for our country to stay together. Compromise will be possible since the country will no longer be divided along party lines.

    There are seven distinct regions in this country, the Maritimes, Quebec, Ontario, the Prairie Provinces, Alberta, British Columbia and the Territories. Therefore, in a non-partisan government, we will only require seven Senators. These divisions are obviously regional and purposely do not take into account the population density. For instance, our three Territories have less than 120,000 people in total but the region is so unique and so vitally important that it deserves special attention. The number of regions in this country will not change. Therefore, we will always have seven Senators. The voting procedures of the Senate should be revised and each Senator will be required to cast their vote or resign from the Senate.

    The changes suggested by this paper may be extreme but they could work and they will save us money. Perhaps a less extreme reduction in representation would be more acceptable in the beginning. For instance, the United States of America only has 100 Senators and 435 Representatives in their House for over 330 million people. That equates to one member of government for over 600,000 people. The consequences of reducing the size of our government might be difficult for the Members of our Legislature to accept. This concept would ultimately reduce their career prospects and change the way they manage our affairs. In a non-partisan government, they will have to learn how to do politics without political parties.


    One of the greatest problems we have with our national budget is the cost of political promises. Political parties are constantly promising to spend your money on ‘wants’ instead of the national ‘needs’. This is a successful form of bribery for votes because our society is becoming increasingly selfish. The country is going deeper into debt every year and no one seems to be concerned about which country is ultimately funding the debt of our country. Someday, some nation is going to call in that debt and we will not be able to pay.

    Whether our desires are self-centered or an admirable attempt to help a specific group of the population, there is not enough money to go around. Our national government must only spend money on their national responsibilities. If you want something else, earn it, raise money for it, but stop asking the government to do it for you. If you create a society dependent on government money, then it will always be dependent on government money and political parties will always promise to spend more money in order to get re-elected. Remember the famous quote from JFK “…ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.”

    Through generations of political promises, we have been trained to selfishly consider what we want immediately instead of considering the consequences for everyone over time. The financial benefits of the changes suggested in this paper will take some time to be realized. As we reduce the size of our government, our responsibilities to current members of our government regarding pensions and benefits will dissipate. As our government learns to focus efficiently in a non-partisan way on national interests, we will relearn to accept financial responsibility for our own personal desires. We will once again learn, as individuals and as a nation, to spend within our means instead of using the ‘borrow and spend philosophy’ adopted during the twentieth century.


Leave a Comment