National
Committee Hearing Exposes Trudeau’s Political Spin on Foreign Interference

In a Circus of Leaks, Double Standards, and Evasions, Conservatives Call Out the Trudeau Government for Putting International Optics Over Canadian Sovereignty
In Canada’s recent hearing with the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security (SECU) on alleged interference by Indian government-linked agents, what should have been a serious inquiry into national security turned into a Liberal-led circus of deflections, double standards, and selective outrage. The Trudeau government trotted out high-ranking officials—representatives from CSIS, the RCMP, the Privy Council Office, and Global Affairs Canada—who were there to answer for the alleged interference tactics targeting Canadians. And to top it off, they were asked why, instead of informing Canadians directly, they’d chosen to leak the intel to The Washington Post. Why were Canadians the last to know about threats on their own soil? And why did a foreign newspaper get the scoop on a story affecting Canadian sovereignty?
At issue were allegations that Indian agents had been involved in intimidation tactics and organized criminal activities targeting Canada’s Sikh community, particularly those sympathetic to the separatist movement. The committee also questioned why the Trudeau government’s response has been to selectively leak this information to American media, while keeping Canadians in the dark about similar threats from other foreign governments—particularly China.
The Leaks to The Washington Post: Information for Foreign Press, Silence for Canadians
Instead of informing Canadians directly, the Trudeau government decided it was a better idea to leak details about alleged Indian interference to The Washington Post, claiming it was to combat “misinformation” internationally. Let’s pause for a moment—this is Canada we’re talking about, and the government feels it’s necessary to share news about threats to Canadians with foreign media instead of Canadians themselves. That selective leak didn’t go unnoticed by Conservative MPs, especially Raquel Dancho. Dancho took the PCO to task, asking why, when it’s Indian interference, they rush to get the word out to American media, but when it comes to Chinese interference, they hide behind “national security.” Canadians watching this hearing saw the hypocrisy plain as day.
Then enter Jennifer O’Connell. She wasn’t there to press for answers—she was there to protect the government narrative. Instead of holding the PCO accountable, O’Connell fed them a lifeline with soft, scripted questions. She was practically giving them cue cards. She asked them to “explain” the reasoning behind the leak to The Washington Post, letting the PCO offer up the excuse of “controlling the narrative.” Controlling the narrative? You don’t say. Jennifer O’Connell might as well have been reading from a Liberal Party talking points memo, trying to dress up a blatant international PR stunt as a move to protect Canadians.
But here’s where it falls apart. Dancho’s challenge was clear: if the Trudeau government had no problem leaking intel on India to The Washington Post, why do they stay silent on the Chinese interference claims that have rocked our elections? Why are Canadians kept in the dark when it doesn’t suit the Liberals’ image? This isn’t national security; this is political convenience, plain and simple.
Conservatives Call Out Liberal Spin and Selective Transparency
Raquel Dancho didn’t mince words, asking why the government leaks intelligence on Indian interference to American media yet hides CCP-related interference under a “national security” guise.
“I wish that the Liberal members would apply that same energy to holding their own Prime Minister accountable for failing to stop interference into our elections,”
She said, calling out the hypocrisy point-blank. Dancho’s comments exposed the Liberals’ inconsistent approach to foreign interference and questioned why the government continues to treat Canadians like afterthoughts.
Glen Motz zeroed in on the glaring gaps in Canada’s vetting process for foreign diplomats, particularly those from India. He pointed out that expelling diplomats means nothing if their replacements are allowed to enter without adequate security checks. Motz’s questions cut to the core of the Liberals’ “tough on interference” stance, revealing it as hollow when diplomats allegedly linked to interference can come and go unchecked.
Dane Lloyd challenged the government’s decision to leak information to The Washington Post rather than informing Canadians directly, highlighting a fundamental question: Why does the Canadian government prioritize international press over its own people? His frustration echoed what many Canadians feel—that their government is more interested in protecting its image on the world stage than ensuring Canadian sovereignty and safety.
The Bottom Line
This SECU Committee hearing confirmed the worst fears of Canadians: the Trudeau government is more interested in international optics than national security. The Liberals pick and choose which foreign threats to publicize, conveniently spinning some stories while keeping others under wraps—all based on what best serves their political agenda. If this is the government’s idea of protecting Canadian sovereignty, it’s no wonder Canadians are left questioning their safety.
And here’s where the Liberal hypocrisy hits new lows: instead of owning up to their failures, they tried to spin it, suggesting that Pierre Poilievre is somehow responsible for the foreign interference threats that have emerged on Trudeau’s watch. But let’s be real—if the Liberals had names of Conservative collaborators in interference plots, we all know they would be the first to name or leak them to the press. Instead, the Privy Council Office’s actions and The Washington Post leak were backed by none other than Trudeau’s own Prime Minister’s Office.
Conservatives like Raquel Dancho, Glen Motz, and Dane Lloyd came prepared to call out this hypocrisy. They demanded transparency and accountability—the very things Trudeau’s government seems reluctant to provide. This wasn’t a hearing on foreign interference; it was an exposé on the Trudeau government’s shameless double standards and lack of genuine concern for Canadian sovereignty.
In Canada’s darkest hours, when it comes to defending our sovereignty, it’s clear that it’s the Conservatives—not the Liberals—who are standing up for Canadians, demanding the truth, and holding this government to account. Trudeau’s Liberals have shown they’ll trade Canadian security for political optics, undermining everything Canada stands for. And Canadians deserve so much better.
Invite your friends and earn rewards
Alberta
COWBOY UP! Pierre Poilievre Promises to Fight for Oil and Gas, a Stronger Military and the Interests of Western Canada

Fr0m Energy Now
As Calgarians take a break from the incessant news of tariff threat deadlines and global economic challenges to celebrate the annual Stampede, Conservative party leader Pierre Poilievre gave them even more to celebrate.
Poilievre returned to Calgary, his hometown, to outline his plan to amplify the legitimate demands of Western Canada and not only fight for oil and gas, but also fight for the interests of farmers, for low taxes, for decentralization, a stronger military and a smaller federal government.
Speaking at the annual Conservative party BBQ at Heritage Park in Calgary (a place Poilievre often visited on school trips growing up), he was reminded of the challenges his family experienced during the years when Trudeau senior was Prime Minister and the disastrous effect of his economic policies.
“I was born in ’79,” Poilievre said. “and only a few years later, Pierre Elliott Trudeau would attack our province with the National Energy Program. There are still a few that remember it. At the same time, he hammered the entire country with money printing deficits that gave us the worst inflation and interest rates in our history. Our family actually lost our home, and we had to scrimp and save and get help from extended family in order to get our little place in Shaughnessy, which my mother still lives in.”
This very personal story resonated with many in the crowd who are now experiencing an affordability crisis that leaves families struggling and young adults unable to afford their first house or condo. Poilievre said that the experience was a powerful motivator for his entry into politics. He wasted no time in proposing a solution – build alliances with other provinces with mutual interests, and he emphasized the importance of advocating for provincial needs.
“Let’s build an alliance with British Columbians who want to ship liquefied natural gas out of the Pacific Coast to Asia, and with Saskatchewanians, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who want to develop their oil and gas and aren’t interested in having anyone in Ottawa cap how much they can produce. Let’s build alliances with Manitobans who want to ship oil in the port of Churchill… with Quebec and other provinces that want to decentralize our country and get Ottawa out of our business so that provinces and people can make their own decisions.”
Poilievre heavily criticized the federal government’s spending and policies of the last decade, including the increase in government costs, and he highlighted the negative impact of those policies on economic stability and warned of the dangers of high inflation and debt. He advocated strongly for a free-market economy, advocating for less government intervention, where businesses compete to impress customers rather than impress politicians. He also addressed the decade-long practice of blocking and then subsidizing certain industries. Poilievre referred to a famous quote from Ronald Reagan as the modus operandi of the current federal regime.
“The Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases. If anything moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”
The practice of blocking and then subsidizing is merely a ploy to grab power, according to Poilievre, making industry far too reliant on government control.
“By blocking you from doing something and then making you ask the government to help you do it, it makes you reliant. It puts them at the center of all power, and that is their mission…a full government takeover of our economy. There’s a core difference between an economy controlled by the government and one controlled by the free market. Businesses have to clamour to please politicians and bureaucrats. In a free market (which we favour), businesses clamour to impress customers. The idea is to put people in charge of their economic lives by letting them have free exchange of work for wages, product for payment and investment for interest.”
Poilievre also said he plans to oppose any ban on gas-powered vehicles, saying, “You should be in the driver’s seat and have the freedom to decide.” This is in reference to the Trudeau-era plan to ban the sale of gas-powered cars by 2035, which the Carney government has said they have no intention to change, even though automakers are indicating that the targets cannot be met. He also intends to oppose the Industrial Carbon tax, Bill C-69 the Impact Assessment Act, Bill C-48 the Oil tanker ban, the proposed emissions cap which will cap energy production, as well as the single-use plastics ban and Bill C-11, also known as the Online Streaming Act and the proposed “Online Harms Act,” also known as Bill C-63. Poilievre closed with rallying thoughts that had a distinctive Western flavour.
“Fighting for these values is never easy. Change, as we’ve seen, is not easy. Nothing worth doing is easy… Making Alberta was hard. Making Canada, the country we love, was even harder. But we don’t back down, and we don’t run away. When things get hard, we dust ourselves off, we get back in the saddle, and we gallop forward to the fight.”
Cowboy up, Mr. Poilievre.
Maureen McCall is an energy professional who writes on issues affecting the energy industry.
Business
Carney’s new agenda faces old Canadian problems

From the Fraser Institute
In his June speech announcing a major buildup of Canada’s military, Prime Minister Mark Carney repeated his belief that this country faces a “hinge moment” of the sort the allied countries confronted after the Second World War.
A better comparison might be with the beginning of the war itself.
Then, the Allies found themselves at war with an autocratic state bent on their defeat and possible destruction. Now, Carney faces an antagonistic American president bent on annexing Canada through economic warfare.
Then, Canada rose to the challenge, creating the world’s third-largest navy and landing an army at Normandy on D-Day. Now, Carney has announced the most aggressive reorienting of Canada’s economic, foreign and defence policies in generations.
Polls show strong support among Canadians for this new agenda. But the old Canada is still there. It will fight back. It may yet win.
The situation certainly would have been more encouraging had Carney not inherited Justin Trudeau’s legacy of severe economic and environmental restrictions—picking economic winners and losers rather than letting the market decide—and chronic deficits. The new prime minister would do well to dismantle as much of that legacy as he can.
Some advocate a return to the more laissez-faire approach of Stephen Harper’s government. But Harper didn’t confront a belligerent president hoping to annex Canada through the “economic force” of tariff walls.
The prime minister succeeded in getting Bill C-5, which is intended to weaken at least some of the restrictions on resource development and infrastructure, passed into law. He and the premiers pledge to finally dismantle generations of internal trade and labour mobility barriers. If we must trade less with the Americans, we can at least learn to trade with ourselves.
And the prime minister deserves high praise for reversing decades of military decline through increased spending and efforts to improve procurement. If Carney accomplishes nothing more than restoring Canada’s defences, especially in the Arctic, he will be well remembered.
That said, major challenges confront the Carney agenda.
There’s much talk about a new national energy corridor. But what does that mean? One KPMG executive defined it as a “dedicated, streamlined pathway for the energy, electricity, decarbonization, transportation and digital infrastructure.”
Yes, but what does that mean?
Whatever it means, some First Nations will oppose it tooth-and-nail. Not all of them, mind you. The First Nations Major Project Coalition is dedicated to assisting First Nations in working with government and the private sector for the benefit of all. But many First Nations people consider resource development further exploitation of their ancestral lands by a colonizing power. At the first major proposal to which they do not buy in, they will take the government to court.
What investor will be willing to commit to a project that could be blocked for years as First Nations and Ottawa fight it out all the way to the Supreme Court?
The prime minister, formerly a fervent advocate of combatting climate change, now talks about developing “conventional energy,” which means oil and gas pipelines. But environmental activists will fiercely oppose those pipelines.
There is so much that could go wrong. Sweep away those internal trade barriers? Some premiers will resist. Accelerate housing development? Some mayors will resist. Expand exports to Europe and Asia? Some businesses and entrepreneurs will say it’s not worth the risk.
As for the massive increase in defence spending, where will the money come from? What will be next year’s deficit? What will be the deficit’s impact on inflation, interest rates and sovereign creditworthiness? The obstacles are high enough to make anyone wonder how much, if any, of the government’s platform will be realized. But other factors are at work as well, factors that were also present in 1939.
To execute his mandate, Carney is surrounding himself with what, back in the Second World War, were called “dollar a year men”—executives who came to Ottawa from the private sector to mobilize the economy for wartime.
In Carney’s case he has brought in Marc-André Blanchard as chief of staff and Michael Sabia as clerk of the privy council. Both are highly experienced in government and the private sector. Both are taking very large pay cuts because, presumably, they understand the gravity of the times and believe in the prime minister’s plans.
Most important, Carney’s agenda has broad support from a public that fears for the country’s future and will have little patience toward any group seeking to block the prime minister’s agenda.
Millions of Canadians want this government’s reform efforts to succeed. Those who would put it at risk of failing will have to contend with public anger. That gives Carney a shot at making real change.
-
Alberta10 hours ago
COWBOY UP! Pierre Poilievre Promises to Fight for Oil and Gas, a Stronger Military and the Interests of Western Canada
-
Alberta1 day ago
Alberta Next: Immigration
-
Business2 days ago
The Digital Services Tax Q&A: “It was going to be complicated and messy”
-
International2 days ago
Elon Musk forms America Party after split with Trump
-
Alberta10 hours ago
Alberta and Ontario sign agreements to drive oil and gas pipelines, energy corridors, and repeal investment blocking federal policies
-
COVID-1913 hours ago
FDA requires new warning on mRNA COVID shots due to heart damage in young men
-
Alberta Sports Hall of Fame and Museum1 day ago
Alberta Sports Hall of Fame 2025 Inductee Profiles – Para Nordic Skiing – Brian and Robin McKeever
-
Crime10 hours ago
Eyebrows Raise as Karoline Leavitt Answers Tough Questions About Epstein