National
Liberal Patronage: $330 Million in Questionable Allocations at Canada’s Green Tech Agency
What we learned from the committee is as clear as it is disturbing: Liberal ministers and appointees at SDTC have been funneling taxpayer dollars to friends under the guise of green technology funding.
In a damning House of Commons Public Accounts Committee (PACP) meeting, details emerged that Canada’s flagship “green” agency, Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC), funneled hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars into companies connected to Liberal insiders. An Auditor General’s report shed light on the staggering scale of this apparent Liberal patronage scheme, revealing that $330 million was awarded to projects with board members tied to the SDTC itself. Another $59 million found its way into initiatives that didn’t even meet SDTC’s green-tech mandate, fueling accusations of political favoritism and cronyism within Prime Minister Trudeau’s government.
Opposition MPs, led by Conservatives Rick Perkins and Michael Cooper, along with Bloc MP Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné and NDP MP Richard Cannings, took turns dissecting former Liberal Minister Navdeep Bains’ role in appointing Annette Verschuren as SDTC’s board chair. Testimony from the hearing, corroborated by statements from SDTC’s CEO, revealed that Bains reached out to Verschuren multiple times about her appointment, despite his claims of following an “open, transparent, and arm’s-length” process. Yet, when grilled by the opposition, Bains repeatedly invoked “process” and shifted blame onto the Privy Council Office (PCO), claiming he merely encouraged a diverse pool of applicants.
But the evidence doesn’t line up with the former minister’s narrative. Witnesses testified that Assistant Deputy Minister Noseworthy had informed SDTC CEO Leah Lawrence of Verschuren’s appointment even before it was finalized, indicating a behind-the-scenes process driven by Liberal influence. These revelations throw the credibility of the appointment process into question, suggesting it may have been less about selecting qualified candidates and more about ensuring loyal Liberal allies held key positions.
The committee’s findings, sparked by the Auditor General’s investigation, expose a serious issue of conflicts of interest within SDTC’s funding operations. This is a public agency with a mission to advance sustainable development, yet the Liberal government’s management seems to have turned it into a cash machine for insiders. The Auditor General’s report has revealed a troubling pattern of funding allocations going to companies with board connections, undercutting the government’s credibility on environmental stewardship and transparency.
What we learned from the committee is as clear as it is disturbing: Liberal ministers and appointees at SDTC have been funneling taxpayer dollars to friends under the guise of green technology funding. This isn’t just a lapse in oversight; it’s a systematic approach that prioritizes insider deals over real environmental progress, putting the Trudeau government’s commitment to transparency and sustainability squarely in doubt.
Opposition MPs Call Out Lack of Accountability
During this pivotal Public Accounts Committee meeting, opposition MPs went on the offensive, exposing a deep pattern of evasion and mismanagement in how taxpayer dollars were funneled into the hands of Liberal insiders under former Liberal Minister Navdeep Bains. Conservative MPs Rick Perkins and Michael Cooper led the charge, calling out Bains’ deflections and demanding straight answers. They pointed to the $330 million awarded by Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC) to projects connected to its own board members, questioning why this blatant conflict of interest was permitted under Bains’ watch.
Perkins and Cooper’s approach was blunt. They challenged Bains on his repeated reliance on vague, bureaucratic defenses, pointing out that as minister, he had a duty to exercise oversight on SDTC’s operations. Perkins in particular questioned Bains about his involvement in appointing Annette Verschuren as chair of SDTC’s board. Despite Bains’ claims that he couldn’t “recall” specific discussions with Verschuren, evidence surfaced that he contacted her multiple times prior to her appointment. For Perkins and Cooper, this level of involvement, coupled with Bains’ repeated refusal to acknowledge conflicts of interest within SDTC, painted a damning picture of a Liberal minister who prioritized insider appointments over accountability to Canadian taxpayers.
Bloc MP Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné and NDP MP Richard Cannings focused their questioning on the government’s failure to ensure responsible oversight of SDTC’s environmental funds. Sinclair-Desgagné highlighted Bains’ “arm’s-length” defense as an excuse, given the testimony indicating that senior officials had preemptively informed SDTC’s CEO about Verschuren’s appointment, suggesting an internal network of influence rather than a transparent, merit-based process. She called out the apparent detachment of Bains from SDTC’s operations, underscoring how his office either ignored or bypassed red flags.
NDP MP Cannings raised critical points about the hypocrisy of a government that claims to champion green innovation while allowing SDTC to devolve into a taxpayer-funded favor bank. Cannings pointed out that SDTC’s funds, meant for real environmental progress, were instead granted to projects with questionable ties and little sustainability impact. For Canadians concerned with climate action, Cannings’ questions laid bare the truth: the Liberal government’s commitment to “green” initiatives is far weaker than their dedication to keeping insiders funded.
This unified front by Conservative, Bloc, and NDP MPs highlighted the same disturbing trend: a Liberal government that talks about accountability and climate action but delivers neither, choosing instead to use taxpayer funds to benefit those closest to the party.
Bains’ Defense: Hiding Behind “Process” and Arm’s-Length Excuses
When faced with tough questions on SDTC’s mismanagement, former Liberal Minister Navdeep Bains clung tightly to procedural defenses, repeatedly deflecting responsibility to the Privy Council Office (PCO) and downplaying his role as minister. Bains insisted that the PCO alone was responsible for vetting board members, suggesting his involvement was “hands-off” and strictly procedural. Yet, opposition MPs saw right through this tactic, viewing it as a clear attempt to dodge accountability.
Throughout the hearing, Bains deflected pointed questions by portraying SDTC’s oversight as out of his hands, claiming his office only followed standard processes. He avoided addressing why his appointee, Annette Verschuren, landed the SDTC board chair role despite potential conflicts of interest, with millions later flowing to companies linked to board members. By painting himself as a mere bystander to PCO’s vetting process, Bains sidestepped responsibility for ensuring taxpayer funds went to projects with genuine environmental merit, rather than those benefiting Liberal insiders.
When pressed about specific discussions surrounding Verschuren’s appointment, Bains leaned on what can only be described as selective memory. Asked about his personal involvement, he claimed he “couldn’t recall” multiple key conversations — a response that only raised eyebrows among committee members. Testimonies from SDTC’s CEO and other witnesses indicated Bains contacted Verschuren several times, yet his failure to acknowledge this directly cast doubt on his narrative of impartial oversight.
Opposition MPs argued that Bains’ procedural evasions were thinly veiled attempts to cover for what looks like a Liberal patronage pipeline. His refusal to answer clearly and his dependence on “I don’t recall” responses drew sharp criticism, with opposition leaders labeling it as a standard Liberal tactic to avoid admitting responsibility. The result? A testimony that shed little light on how SDTC was run but spoke volumes about the government’s willingness to dodge accountability whenever insiders are involved.
Inclusion and “Transparency” Won’t Save Liberals from Accountability
Throughout the Public Accounts Committee hearing, Liberal MPs Jean Yip and Francis Drouin took on a clear mission: protect Navdeep Bains at all costs. Instead of addressing the mountain of allegations around SDTC’s blatant cronyism and taxpayer waste, Yip and Drouin turned the hearing into a platform for Liberal talking points, spinning tales of “transparency” and “diversity” that conveniently dodged the actual corruption in front of them. Let’s be clear: hiding behind “inclusivity” doesn’t make the Liberals less corrupt, nor does it absolve them of responsibility when taxpayer money is at stake.
Jean Yip’s questioning gave Bains endless opportunities to recite the “open and competitive” process that supposedly led to Annette Verschuren’s appointment as SDTC board chair. Yet she never asked about Verschuren’s Liberal ties, or why so many millions were awarded to companies connected to SDTC board members. Yip’s focus on “inclusion” and “diverse voices” on the board was a distraction — a slick attempt to shift attention away from the Auditor General’s findings and avoid the reality that those “diverse voices” are well-connected Liberal insiders benefiting from your money.
Francis Drouin was right there to keep the narrative going, pivoting to SDTC’s supposed “green mandate” and giving Bains a platform to tout his government’s commitment to sustainability. But let’s call it what it is: a cover. By talking up sustainability and diversity, Drouin helped Bains avoid explaining why SDTC mismanaged $330 million on projects tied to its own board members, and why an additional $59 million went to ineligible initiatives. This wasn’t accountability — it was damage control, plain and simple.
Yip and Drouin’s interventions were textbook Liberal tactics: deflect, divert, and dilute the discussion. They may have repeated “transparency” and “inclusivity” all they wanted, but these buzzwords are nothing more than a smokescreen for taxpayer-funded favoritism. For Canadians watching, it was an unmistakable display of damage control — the Liberals doing everything they can to dodge real accountability while your tax dollars keep flowing to their inner circle.
Broader Implications: A Systemic Liberal Culture of Avoiding Accountability
The revelations from this Public Accounts Committee meeting show us something far darker than the mismanagement of a single agency. They expose a deeply entrenched system where Trudeau’s Liberal government doesn’t just waste taxpayer money — they use it to reward political cronies and shield insiders from accountability. This isn’t just negligence; it’s the Trudeau Swamp in action, a well-oiled machine funneling your money to friends and allies under the thin cover of bureaucratic “process.”
At the center of this scandal is a strategy the Liberals have perfected: hide behind procedural jargon and “arm’s-length” defenses to dodge any responsibility. The moment former Minister Navdeep Bains took the stand, you could see the tactics at work. Facing questions on how Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC) turned into a cash cow for Liberal insiders, Bains and his fellow Liberal MPs defaulted to the same tired script — insisting every questionable allocation, every insider appointment, was just “routine process.” They claim “independence,” they claim “transparency,” but the evidence paints a different picture: Liberal insiders filling key roles and pulling the strings to channel your money into their pockets.
This scandal isn’t an isolated incident. It’s a glimpse into a troubling pattern, where taxpayer funds — meant for genuine public service — have become Trudeau’s political currency, up for grabs to those with the right connections. And make no mistake: Navdeep Bains’ refusal to answer real questions isn’t just about protecting himself. It’s about preserving a whole Liberal network that thrives on government patronage, hidden behind bureaucratic red tape. The Liberals have turned “process” into a shield, protecting ministers from facing the consequences of their actions.
The stakes couldn’t be higher for Canadians. This isn’t just about misusing a few dollars — it’s about a government prioritizing loyalty over public good, rewarding insiders while millions of Canadians wonder where their taxes are actually going. Under Trudeau’s watch, the promise of accountability has become a punchline, replaced with cronyism and evasion. So here’s the real question: Is Canada governed for its citizens, or for an elite network of well-connected Liberal insiders? Because after this committee meeting, the answer seems painfully clear.
Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .
For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
By Jay Goldberg
Between bad trade calls and looming deficits, Canada is driving money out just when it needs it most
Canadians voted for relative continuity in April, but investors voted with their wallets, moving $124 billion out of the country.
According to the National Bank, Canadian investors purchased approximately $124 billion in American securities between February and July of this year. At the same time, foreign investment in Canada dropped sharply, leaving the country with a serious hole in its capital base.
As Warren Lovely of National Bank put it, “with non-resident investors aloof and Canadians adding foreign assets, the country has suffered a major capital drain”—one he called “unprecedented.”
Why is this happening?
One reason is trade. Canada adopted one of the most aggressive responses to U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariff agenda. Former prime minister Justin Trudeau imposed retaliatory tariffs on the United States and escalated tensions further by targeting goods covered under the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), something even the Trump administration avoided.
The result was punishing. Washington slapped a 35 per cent tariff on non-CUSMA Canadian goods, far higher than the 25 per cent rate applied to Mexico. That made Canadian exports less competitive and unattractive to U.S. consumers. The effects rippled through industries like autos, agriculture and steel, sectors that rely heavily on access to U.S. markets. Canadian producers suddenly found themselves priced out, and investors took note.
Recognizing the damage, Prime Minister Mark Carney rolled back all retaliatory tariffs on CUSMA-covered goods this summer in hopes of cooling tensions. Yet the 35 per cent tariff on non-CUSMA Canadian exports remains, among the highest the U.S. applies to any trading partner.
Investors saw the writing on the wall. They understood Trudeau’s strategy had soured relations with Trump and that, given Canada’s reliance on U.S. trade, the United States would inevitably come out on top. Parking capital in U.S. securities looked far safer than betting on Canada’s economy under a government playing a weak hand.
The trade story alone explains much of the exodus, but fiscal policy is another concern. Interim Parliamentary Budget Officer Jason Jacques recently called Ottawa’s approach “stupefying” and warned that Canada risks a 1990s-style fiscal crisis if spending isn’t brought under control. During the 1990s, ballooning deficits forced deep program cuts and painful tax hikes. Interest rates soared, Canada’s debt was downgraded and Ottawa nearly lost control of its finances. Investors are seeing warning signs that history could repeat itself.
After months of delay, Canadians finally saw a federal budget on Nov. 4. Jacques had already projected a deficit of $68.5 billion when he warned the outlook was “unsustainable.” National Bank now suggests the shortfall could exceed $100 billion. And that doesn’t include Carney’s campaign promises, such as higher defence spending, which could add tens of billions more.
Deficits of that scale matter. They can drive up borrowing costs, leave less room for social spending and undermine confidence in the country’s long-term fiscal stability. For investors managing pensions, RRSPs or business portfolios, Canada’s balance sheet now looks shaky compared to a U.S. economy offering both scale and relative stability.
Add in high taxes, heavy regulation and interprovincial trade barriers, and the picture grows bleaker. Despite decades of promises, barriers between provinces still make it difficult for Canadian businesses to trade freely within their own country. From differing trucking regulations to restrictions on alcohol distribution, these long-standing inefficiencies eat away at productivity. When combined with federal tax and regulatory burdens, the environment for growth becomes even more hostile.
The Carney government needs to take this unprecedented capital drain seriously. Investors are not acting on a whim. They are responding to structural problems—ill-advised trade actions, runaway federal spending and persistent barriers to growth—that Ottawa has yet to fix.
In the short term, that means striking a deal with Washington to lower tariffs and restore confidence that Canada can maintain stable access to U.S. markets. It also means resisting the urge to spend Canada into deeper deficits when warning lights are already flashing red. Over the long term, Ottawa must finally tackle high taxes, cut red tape and eliminate the bureaucratic obstacles that stand in the way of economic growth.
Capital has choices. Right now, it is voting with its feet, and with its dollars, and heading south. If Canada wants that capital to come home, the government will have to earn it back.
Jay Goldberg is a fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
Censorship Industrial Complex
How the UK and Canada Are Leading the West’s Descent into Digital Authoritarianism
“Big Brother is watching you.” These chilling words from George Orwell’s dystopian masterpiece, 1984, no longer read as fiction but are becoming a bleak reality in the UK and Canada—where digital dystopian measures are unravelling the fabric of freedom in two of the West’s oldest democracies.
Under the guise of safety and innovation, the UK and Canada are deploying invasive tools that undermine privacy, stifle free expression, and foster a culture of self-censorship. Both nations are exporting their digital control frameworks through the Five Eyes alliance, a covert intelligence-sharing network uniting the UK, Canada, US, Australia, and New Zealand, established during the Cold War. Simultaneously, their alignment with the United Nations’ Agenda 2030, particularly Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16.9—which mandates universal legal identity by 2030—supports a global policy for digital IDs, such as the UK’s proposed Brit Card and Canada’s Digital Identity Program, which funnel personal data into centralized systems under the pretext of “efficiency and inclusion.” By championing expansive digital regulations, such as the UK’s Online Safety Act and Canada’s pending Bill C-8, which prioritize state-defined “safety” over individual liberties, both nations are not just embracing digital authoritarianism—they’re accelerating the West’s descent into it.
The UK’s digital dragnet
The United Kingdom has long positioned itself as a global leader in surveillance. The British spy agency, Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), runs the formerly-secret mass surveillance programme, code-named Tempora, operational since 2011, which intercepts and stores vast amounts of global internet and phone traffic by tapping into transatlantic fibre-optic cables. Knowledge of its existence only came about in 2013, thanks to the bombshell documents leaked by the former National Security Agency (NSA) intelligence contractor and whistleblower, Edward Snowden. “It’s not just a US problem. The UK has a huge dog in this fight,” Snowden told the Guardian in a June 2013 report. “They [GCHQ] are worse than the US.”
Following that, is the Investigatory Powers Act (IPA) 2016, also dubbed the “Snooper’s Charter,” which mandates that internet service providers store users’ browsing histories, emails, texts, and phone calls for up to a year. Government agencies, including police and intelligence services (like MI5, MI6, and GCHQ) can access this data without a warrant in many cases, enabling bulk collection of communications metadata. This has been criticized for enabling mass surveillance on a scale that invades everyday privacy.
Recent expansions under the Online Safety Act (OSA) further empower authorities to demand backdoors in encrypted apps like WhatsApp, potentially scanning private messages for vaguely defined “harmful” content—a move critics like Big Brother Watch, a privacy advocacy group, decry as a gateway to mass surveillance. The OSA, which received Royal Assent on October 26, 2023, represents a sprawling piece of legislation by the UK government to regulate online content and “protect” users, particularly children, from “illegal and harmful material.” Implemented in phases by Ofcom, the UK’s communications watchdog, it imposes duties on a vast array of internet services, including social media, search engines, messaging apps, gaming platforms, and sites with user-generated content forcing compliance through risk assessments and hefty fines. By July 2025, the OSA was considered “fully in force” for most major provisions. This sweeping regime, aligned with global surveillance trends via Agenda 2030’s push for digital control, threatens to entrench a state-sanctioned digital dragnet, prioritizing “safety” over fundamental freedoms.
Elon Musk’s platform X has warned that the act risks “seriously infringing” on free speech, with the threat of fines up to £18 million or 10% of global annual turnover for non-compliance, encouraging platforms to censor legitimate content to avoid punishment. Musk took to X to express his personal view on the act’s true purpose: “suppression of the people.”
In late September, Imgur (an image-hosting platform popular for memes and shared media) made the decision to block UK users rather than comply with the OSA’s stringent regulations. This underscores the chilling effect such laws can have on digital freedom.
The act’s stated purpose is to make the UK “the safest place in the world to be online.” However, critics argue it’s a brazen power grab by the UK government to increase censorship and surveillance, all the while masquerading as a noble crusade to “protect” users.
Another pivotal development is the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (DUAA), which received Royal Assent in June. This wide-ranging legislation streamlines data protection rules to boost economic growth and public services but at the cost of privacy safeguards. It allows broader data sharing among government agencies and private entities, including for AI-driven analytics. For instance, it enables “smart data schemes” where personal information from banking, energy, and telecom sectors can be accessed more easily, seemingly for consumer benefits like personalized services—but raising fears of unchecked profiling.
Cybersecurity enhancements further expand the UK’s pervasive surveillance measures. The forthcoming Cyber Security and Resilience Bill, announced in the July 2024 King’s Speech and slated for introduction by year’s end, expands the Network and Information Systems (NIS) Regulations to critical infrastructure, mandating real-time threat reporting and government access to systems. This builds on existing tools like facial recognition technology, deployed extensively in public spaces. In 2025, trials in cities like London have integrated AI cameras that scan crowds in real-time, linking to national databases for instant identification—evoking a biometric police state.
Source: BBC News
The New York Times reported: “British authorities have also recently expanded oversight of online speech, tried weakening encryption and experimented with artificial intelligence to review asylum claims. The actions, which have accelerated under Prime Minister Keir Starmer with the goal of addressing societal problems, add up to one of the most sweeping embraces of digital surveillance and internet regulation by a Western democracy.”
Compounding this, UK police arrest over 30 people a day for “offensive” tweets and online messages, per The Times, often under vague laws, fuelling justifiable fears of Orwell’s thought police.
Yet, of all the UK’s digital dystopian measures, none has ignited greater fury than Prime Minister Starmer’s mandatory “Brit Card” digital ID—a smartphone-based system effectively turning every citizen into a tracked entity.
First announced on September 4, as a tool to “tackle illegal immigration and strengthen border security,” but rapidly the Brit Card’s scope ballooned through function-creep to envelop everyday essentials like welfare, banking and public access. These IDs, stored on smartphones containing sensitive data like photos, names, dates of birth, nationalities, and residency status, are sold “as the front door to all kinds of everyday tasks,” a vision championed by the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change— and echoed by Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall MP in her October 13 parliamentary speech.
Source: TheBritishIntel
This digital shackles system has sparked fierce resistance across the UK. A scathing letter, led by independent MP Rupert Lowe and endorsed by nearly 40 MPs from diverse parties, denounces the government’s proposed mandatory “Brit Card” digital ID as “dangerous, intrusive, and profoundly un-British.” Conservative MP David Davis issued a stark warning, declaring that such systems “are profoundly dangerous to the privacy and fundamental freedoms of the British people.” On X, Davis amplified his critique, citing a £14m fine imposed on Capita after hackers breached pension savers’ personal data, writing: “This is another perfect example of why the government’s digital ID cards are a terrible idea.” By early October, a petition opposing the proposal had garnered over 2.8 million signatures, reflecting widespread public outcry. The government, however, dismissed these objections, stating, “We will introduce a digital ID within this Parliament to address illegal migration, streamline access to government services, and improve efficiency. We will consult on details soon.”
Canada’s surveillance surge
Across the Atlantic, Canada’s surveillance surge under Prime Minister Mark Carney—former Bank of England head and World Economic Forum board member—mirrors the UK’s dystopian trajectory. Carney, with his globalist agenda, has overseen a slew of bills that prioritize “security” over sovereignty. Take Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Customs Act, introduced June 17, 2025, which enables warrantless data access at borders and sharing with U.S. authorities via CLOUD Act (Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act) pacts—essentially handing Canadian citizens’ digital lives to foreign powers. Despite public backlash prompting proposed amendments in October, its core—enhanced monitoring of transactions and exports—remains ripe for abuse.
Complementing this, Bill C-8, first introduced June 18, 2025, amends the Telecommunications Act to impose cybersecurity mandates on critical sectors like telecoms and finance. It empowers the government to issue secret orders compelling companies to install backdoors or weaken encryption, potentially compromising user security. These orders can mandate the cutoff of internet and telephone services to specified individuals without the need for a warrant or judicial oversight, under the vague premise of securing the system against “any threat.”
Opposition to this bill has been fierce. In a parliamentary speech Canada’s Conservative MP Matt Strauss, decried the bill’s sections 15.1 and 15.2 as granting “unprecedented, incredible power” to the government. He warned of a future where individuals could be digitally exiled—cut off from email, banking, and work—without explanation or recourse, likening it to a “digital gulag.”
Source: Video shared by Andrew Bridgen
The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) and privacy advocates have echoed these concerns, arguing that the bill’s ambiguous language and lack of due process violate fundamental Charter rights, including freedom of expression, liberty, and protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
Bill C-8 complements the Online Harms Act (Bill C-63), first introduced in February 2024, which demanded platforms purge content like child exploitation and hate speech within 24 hours, risking censorship with vague “harmful” definitions. Inspired by the UK’s OSA and EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), C-63 collapsed amid fierce backlash for its potential to enable censorship, infringe on free speech, and lack of due process. The CCF and Pierre Poilievre, calling it “woke authoritarianism,” led a 2024 petition with 100,000 signatures. It died during Parliament’s January 2025 prorogation after Justin Trudeau’s resignation.
These bills build on an alarming precedent: during the COVID era, Canada’s Public Health Agency admitted to tracking 33 million devices during lockdown—nearly the entire population—under the pretext of public health, a blatant violation exposed only through persistent scrutiny. The Communications Security Establishment (CSE), empowered by the longstanding Bill C-59, continues bulk metadata collection, often without adequate oversight. These measures are not isolated; they stem from a deeper rot, where pandemic-era controls have been normalized into everyday policy.
Canada’s Digital Identity Program, touted as a “convenient” tool for seamless access to government services, emulates the UK’s Brit Card and aligns with UN Agenda 2030’s SDG 16.9. It remains in active development and piloting phases, with full national rollout projected for 2027–2028.
“The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” Orwell’s 1984 warns we must urgently resist this descent into digital authoritarianism—through petitions, protests, and demands for transparency—before a Western Great Firewall is erected, replicating China’s stranglehold that polices every keystroke and thought.
If you find value in the work I do, please consider a paid subscription or make a one-off donation.
Bank of Canada governor warns citizens to anticipate lower standard of living
The era of Climate Change Alarmism is over
B.C. government laid groundwork for turning private property into Aboriginal land
From Underdog to Top Broodmare
-
Bruce Dowbiggin2 days agoA Story So Good Not Even The Elbows Up Crew Could Ruin It
-
Agriculture15 hours agoDanish Cows Collapsing Under Mandatory Methane-Reducing Additive
-
Alberta2 days agoCanada’s heavy oil finds new fans as global demand rises
-
Health2 days agoRFK Jr’s argument for studying efficacy of various vaccines
-
Daily Caller1 day agoTrump Reportedly Planning Ground Troops, Drone Strikes On Cartels In Mexico
-
Addictions2 days agoThe War on Commonsense Nicotine Regulation
-
Business1 day agoTrump’s Tariffs Have Not Caused Economy To Collapse
-
Business2 days agoCarney government should retire misleading ‘G7’ talking point on economic growth