Business
China likely to escape scot-free in persecution of two Canadians

From the MacDonald Laurier Institute
By Charles Burton
Beijing propagandists are already using recent claims to vindicate the appalling treatment of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor
There is a deep sadness to reports thatĀ Michael Spavor feels he was badly wronged by his fellow former political prisoner Michael KovrigĀ and, by extension, political officers at Canadaās embassy in Beijing and their masters in Ottawa.
Spavor reportedly wants millions in compensation from the Canadian government for its alleged complicity in his detention in his Chinese prison ordeal. If this ends up in court, Kovrig and his superiors would have an opportunity to defend themselves against these allegations, but Beijing propagandists are already using them to vindicate the appalling treatment of Kovrig and Spavor ā a gross violation of international law ā by a ruthless regime that arrested them to pressure Canada into releasing Chinese Communist Party figure Meng Wanzhou from house arrest in Vancouver.
While few specifics are known about Spavorās claims, media reports depict a connection to Kovrigās former job at Canadaās embassy in Beijing, and later with the International Crisis Group think tank, roles in which he would allegedly meet with people in China, engage them in his fluent Mandarin, and mine the conversations for nuggets of insight into Chinaās political or economic affairs.
Chinese authorities, of course, donāt like such activities. One expects that Kovrig and his superiors, both in government and the ICG, would have been well aware that this type of work would irritate Beijing, thus the danger of arbitrary detention on trumped-up charges was always there whenever he visited China without the protection of a diplomatic passport. And so it was.
One particularly troubling aspect of this sort of activity is the risk it presents to people who might unknowingly be sources for these information-gathering practices. Apparently Spavor and Kovrig routinely got together for drinks and sessions of good-humoured conversation. But friendships with diplomats imply that observations shared in a bar can end up the next morning in a report to Ottawa, and on to the Five Eyes. Was this possibility lost on Spavor? Was Kovrig perhaps not as forthcoming as he could have been about the full dimensions of their chats?
And there is always the possibility that Chinaās Ministry of State Security has access to Canadian diplomatic communications, which led them to open a file on the two.
Spavor ran a business, Paektu Cultural Exchange, that facilitated sports, cultural, tourism and business exchanges with North Korea. These pricey tours necessitated the transfer of badly-needed foreign currency into North Korea, arguably helping to enable the repressive Pyongyang regime. Perhaps more intriguing, in the course of his work Spavor developed an unlikely rapport with the third-generation Kim family dictator, Kim Jong Un, and wasĀ photographed jet-skiing and drinking cocktails with him on a private yacht. It is very plausible that China strongly disapproved of their junior proxy Korean communist dictator cavorting with non-Chinese foreign friends, hence his arrest.
Troublingly, Canadians ā who were transfixed and infuriated by the two Michaelsā incarceration ā have had little news about Kovrig and Spavorās China nightmare since theirĀ sudden release in September 2021, just hours after Canada released Meng. One wonders if Ottawa really did enough to incentivize Chinaās Communist authorities to send them home sooner, or if there were other factors in Canadaās murky relationship with Beijing that took priority over what was perhaps downplayed behind closed doors as just another consular matter, one of many that areĀ de factoĀ subordinated to trade and political interests.
We may never see any Global Affairs Canada officials or former diplomats giving public evidence in a Canadian court to defend against Spavorās accusation. To be sure, much of what goes on between Canada and China ā indeed, within our own government internally ā is kept from us by the secretive walls of the Security of Information Act.
Perhaps Spavor will be given a big whack of taxpayer money in an out-of-court settlement laced with ironclad nondisclosure provisions. One thing is for sure though. The Chinese authorities who so brutally persecuted him will, as usual, get off scot-free.
Charles Burton is a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, non-resident senior fellow of the European Values Center for Security Policy in Prague, and former diplomat at Canadaās embassy in Beijing.
Business
103 Conflicts and Counting Unprecedented Ethics Web of Prime Minister Mark Carney

Ā
Dan Knight
Brookfield. The PMO. Eurasia Group. One Green Agenda, Billions in Conflicts.
Well, it finally happened. After months of dodging questions and hiding behind vague platitudes about āclimate leadership,ā Prime Minister Mark Carneyās official conflict-of-interest screen has been released by the Ethics Commissionerāand what it reveals is nothing short of staggering. Not five entities. Not a dozen. One hundred and three. Thatās how many corporate and financial interests Carney has quietly acknowledged are too conflicted for him to touch.
At the center of this web? Brookfield Asset Management, the $1 trillion global investment firm where Carney was Vice-Chair before walking straight into Canadaās top political office. The very same Brookfield that owns energy projects, pipelines, nuclear companies, real estate empires, carbon offset schemes you name it, theyāve got a piece of it. And now, theyāve got a former executive running the country.
Weāre told itās all perfectly legal. Weāre told Carney has ārecused himself.ā But what this disclosure actually shows is something much bigger: a government captured by finance, a prime minister with deep, ongoing entanglements in the very sectors his policies now enrich, and a climate agenda thatās beginning to look a whole lot like a money-printing operation for the global elite.
The deeper one digs into Prime Minister Mark Carneyās ethics disclosure, the clearer the picture becomes: whatās been framed as a climate leadership story is, in reality, a tightly wound web of commercial interest wrapped in green rhetoric. The 103-entity conflict-of-interest screen, ostensibly a shield against impropriety, instead serves as a road map of how thoroughly Canadaās top political office is entangled in the global green finance complex centered around Brookfield Asset Management.
As of Q1 2025, Brookfield reports $125 billion in assets under management (AUM) in its Renewable Power & Transition segment, a figure representing 12.5% of its overall $1 trillion portfolio. This segment alone encompasses most of the entities on Carneyās ethics screen: nearly 60 out of 103, even after accounting for duplicates. These arenāt passive holdings theyāre the very projects, technologies, and subsidy-eligible vehicles Carney once oversaw directly as vice-chair of Brookfield and as co-lead of its $15 billion Global Transition Fund.
Brookfieldās renewables portfolio is vast: over 41.8 GW in installed capacity globally across wind, solar, hydro, and storage, with a 200+ GW development pipeline. A significant portion of this is owned or operated through the same SPVs and subsidiaries now appearing on the conflict list. Notable entries include Scout Clean Energy ($1B), Urban Grid ($650M), and Standard Solar ($540M). These acquisitions were all completed while Carney was at Brookfield, and they continue to generate revenue from U.S. and Canadian subsidy frameworks programs now shaped by the very government he leads.
Brookfield Renewable Partners L.P., the sector flagship, holds approximately $95 billion in total assets and generated $315 million in funds from operations in Q1 2025 alone. The firm is planning to add another 8 GW in capacity this year expansion that is, in part, subsidized through the same green transition policies Carney has promoted both in office and as a climate finance advocate.
The line between public and private interest blurs even further when examining the entities categorized under the “energy transition” banner; nuclear, CCS (carbon capture and storage), and so-called e-fuels. Carneyās screen includes Brookfieldās recent $8 billion acquisition of Westinghouse Electric Company, a nuclear power behemoth now positioned to benefit from Canadaās federal nuclear incentives and SMR (small modular reactor) program. Other flagged investments like Entropy and Carbon TerraVault fall directly into carbon credit and offset schemesāmarkets heavily influenced by federal regulation and incentive design.
Letās stop pretending. What weāre witnessing here isnāt just conflict of interest, itās a complete merger of state power and corporate ambition, all dressed up in the language of moral urgency. The Ethics Commissionerās so-called āscreenā for Mark Carney? Itās a joke. A checklist. A bureaucratic fig leaf meant to reassure you that everythingās above board. But itās not.
Because hereās the truth: Carney is policing himself. Heās supposed to recuse himself from decisions that benefit the 103 entities heās tied to many of which he helped create or oversee as Vice-Chair of Brookfield Asset Management. But who decides if heās in conflict? He does. Or more accurately, the PMO does. The same PMO now drafting Dominion Barton-style focus groups to figure out how best toĀ sellĀ you the green grift. Thereās no third-party oversight, no transparency on whatās actually in his so-called blind trust, and no disclosure of the carried interest he may still be entitled to from Brookfieldās billions in funds.
Meanwhile, the policy levers of government are being pulled in exactly the direction Brookfield bet on. Wind, solar, carbon capture, nuclear, every so-called ātransitionā sector that Brookfield spent years buying into is now flush with green subsidies, ESG guarantees, and taxpayer-backed investment shields. This isnāt the free market at work, itās a strategic payoff, engineered by someone whoās now running one of the most powerful G7 economies.
And again, none of it is illegal. Thatās the most damning part. Because legality isnāt the standard here. The standard is integrity, and thatās nowhere to be found. The scale of this overlap isnāt just large. Itās systemic. Itās built into the very foundation of the Carney governmentās climate policy. The same man who structured these funds is now the man signing off on the policies that make them profitable.
Diana Fox Carneyās Quiet Role in the Climate Cash Machine
And just when you thought the web of influence stopped at the Prime Minister himself, along comes Diana Fox Carney, economist, climate consultant, and spouse of the most well-connected man in Canadian politics. While Mark Carney’s direct financial entanglements with Brookfield Asset Management are now public record, his wifeās career trajectory paints an equally troubling picture of how the same elite networks driving Canadaās green spending are profiting in parallel, behind the curtain.
Diana Fox Carney currently holds a senior advisory role at Eurasia Group, the New York-based geopolitical risk consultancy thatās become a quiet powerhouse in shaping global ESG narratives. Itās also the same firm where Gerald ButtsāTrudeauās longtime fixer and architect of the federal climate playbookānow serves as vice chair. Add in former journalist Evan Solomon and even Conservative stalwart John Baird, and youāve got a bipartisan consultancyĀ stackedĀ with Canadian political operators. Convenient? Maybe. Coordinated? You decide.
And what has this firm staffed with Liberal-era insiders received in return? Millions in untendered government contracts, including a $446,210 deal from Natural Resources Canada in 2024 for vaguely defined “geopolitical research.” Thatās nearly half a million dollars in taxpayer money handed outĀ without competition, to a firm employing the sitting Prime Ministerās wifeāand his former colleagues. Just coincidence, right?
But Eurasia Group is only the start. Dianaās reach extends far beyond advisory calls. Sheās connected to:
- BeyondNetZero, a climate equity fund backed by U.S. private capital giant General Atlantic.
- Helios CLEAR, investing in African climate āresilience.ā
- ClientEarth U.S. and the Shell Foundation, both pushing aggressive environmental litigation and policy influence.
- Canada 2020, a Trudeau-aligned think tank thatās pocketed over $1 million in federal grants.
Throw in indirect ties to Gates Foundation funding, Save the Children, and research networks influencing African agriculture, and youāre looking at a network of transnational climate consultants with deep, ongoing influence over the exact climate policies the federal government is now implementing under her husbandās leadership.
Now, legally, Diana is in the clear. Sheās not a public office holder. But thatās the point. The rules werenāt designed for this new class of political operatorāthe dual-career globalist power couple, where one side signs the climate cheques while the other cashes them. No formal disclosure is required. No recusals. No transparency. Yet the influence is there. The access is there. The money is flowing.
Opposition Reaction: Pierre Poilievre Slams Carney’s Hidden Conflicts, Demands Real Transparency
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre wasted no time responding to the bombshell ethics screen showing Prime Minister Mark Carney is recusing himself from dealings with over 100 companies, many tied to his former employer, Brookfield Asset Management. In a pair of direct and widely shared posts, Poilievre accused Carney of concealing critical financial entanglements from voters during the 2025 election, and warned that the Liberal leader is now either positioned to profit from federal decisions or paralyzed from making them.
āMark Carney must explain why he kept these conflicts secret from voters until after the election,ā Poilievre wrote. āNow he will be in a position to profit from big decisions or will be forced to sit out those decisions altogether. Either way, Canadians will pay the price.ā
In a second post earlier that morning, Poilievre challenged the credibility of Carneyās so-called blind trust, urging the Prime Minister to liquidate his holdings entirely and hand the cash to a trustee who can invest it without Carneyās knowledge or influence:
āOtherwise, he will always know how political decisions can affect his personal wealth.ā
These statements mark the strongest opposition rebuke yet of the Carney government’s financial entanglements. Poilievreās message echoes growing public criticism that the ethics screen is little more than window dressing, lacking third-party oversight, and that it fails to address indirect benefit through carried interest, deferred compensation, or spousal affiliations.
While Carney has claimed he is in full compliance with federal ethics laws, the fact that the disclosures were released only after the election is fueling outrageānot just among Conservatives but from broader accountability watchdogs. With over 100 entities flagged, many of them tied to green energy, infrastructure, and climate financeāthe same sectors receiving billions in federal spendingāthe Conservative leader has positioned himself as the voice of those demanding a full forensic audit of the Prime Ministerās interests.
The message from the opposition is clear: if this were a Conservative leader, the media would be calling it a scandal. But because it’s Carneyāthe global banker, the climate envoy, the Liberal saviorāthe establishment is looking the other way. Poilievreās Conservatives arenāt. And theyāre turning this into a defining issue of integrity and accountability in Canadian politics.
Letās Call This What It Is
This isnāt subtle. This isnāt nuanced. This is what a grift looks likeāon paper, in public, in black and white. Over one hundred conflicts of interest tied directly to Mark Carney. Entire portfolios of foreign and domestic holdings, billions in green investments, shell companies in Bermudaāand thatās before we even get to his wifeās global consultancy work, advising firms that quietly gobble up federal contracts without a single public tender.
And hereās the thing: we werenāt told any of this during the election. There was no press conference, no headline, no public vetting of the sprawling web of corporate and climate interests now tied to the highest office in the country. Why? Because it would have compromised the Liberal grip on power. Because the last thing this party wanted Canadians to know was that their new leader wasnāt just a bankerābut a banker with a boardroomās worth of financial strings still attached.
Now imagineājust for a momentāif it had been Pierre Poilievre. Or Andrew Scheer. OrĀ anyĀ Conservative leader with over a hundred screened entities, global finance ties, offshore SPVs, and a spouse employed by a company collecting millions in government money. The press would be in a frenzy. The CBC would be running specials. Theyād be calling him compromised, unfit, a foreign agent.
But because itās their guyābecause itās the Liberal eliteās banker-in-chiefāweāre told itās fine. Itās all above board. Move along, nothing to see here.
Nonsense. Absolute nonsense.
This is not leadership. This is ideological grifting at the highest level. The Liberal Party, once the party of national unity and democratic accountability, has become a hollowed-out machine for elite interests. Theyāre not liberals. Theyāre griftersāgrifting for green subsidies, globalist contracts, and personal access to power. They have no principle left. Just consultants, contracts, and a taxpayer-funded narrative to keep the game going.
Enough. Canadians didnāt vote for this. They werenāt told the truth. And now the entire climate agenda, the whole ājust transition,ā looks more like a get-rich scheme for the political class than any serious public mission.
Itās time for an election. Time to clear house. Time to drain this toxic, green-glossed swamp once and for all.
Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight
Invite your friends and earn rewards
Business
Most Canadians say retaliatory tariffs on American goods contribute to raising the price of essential goods at home

- 77 per cent say Canadaās tariffs on U.S. products increase the price of consumer goods
- 72 per cent say that their current tax bill hurts their standard of living
A new MEI-Ipsos poll published this morning reveals a clear disconnect between Ottawaās high-tax, high-spending approach and Canadiansā level of satisfaction.
āCanadians are not on board with Ottawaās fiscal path,ā says Samantha Dagres, communications manager at the MEI. āFrom housing to trade policy, Canadians feel theyāre being squeezed by a government that is increasingly an impediment to their standard of living.ā
More than half of Canadians (54 perĀ cent) say Ottawa is spending too much, while only six perĀ cent think it is spending too little.
A majority (54 perĀ cent) also do not believe federal dollars are being effectively allocated to address Canadaās most important issues, and a similar proportion (55 perĀ cent) are dissatisfied with the transparency and accountability in the governmentās spending practices.
As for their own tax bills, Canadians are equally skeptical. Two-thirds (67 per cent) say they pay too much income tax, and about half say they do not receive good value in return.
Provincial governments fared even worse. A majority of Canadians say they receive poor value for the taxes they pay provincially. In Quebec, nearly two-thirds (64 perĀ cent) of respondents say they are not getting their moneyās worth from the provincial government.
Not coincidentally, Quebecers face theĀ highestĀ marginal tax rates in North America.
On the question of Canadaās response to the U.S. trade dispute, nearly eight in 10 Canadians (77 per cent) agree that Ottawaās retaliatory tariffs on American products are driving up the cost of everyday goods.
āCanadians understand that tariffs are just another form of taxation, and that they are the ones footing the bill for any political posturing,ā adds Ms. Dagres. āOttawa should favour unilateral tariff reduction and increased trade with other nations, as opposed to retaliatory tariffs that heap more costs onto Canadian consumers and businesses.ā
On the issue of housing, 74 per cent of respondents believe that taxes on new construction contribute directly to unaffordability.
All of this dissatisfaction culminates in 72 per cent of Canadians saying their overall tax burden is reducing their standard of living.
āTaxpayers are not just ATMs for government ā and if they are going to pay such exorbitant taxes, youād think the least they could expect is good service in return,ā says Ms. Dagres. āCanadians are increasingly distrustful of a government that believes every problem can be solved with higher taxes.ā
A sample of 1,020 Canadians 18 years of age and older was polled between June 17 and 23, 2025. The results are accurate to within ± 3.8 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
The results of the MEI-Ipsos poll are available here.
* * *
The MEI is an independent public policy think tank with offices in Montreal, Ottawa, and Calgary. Through its publications, media appearances, and advisory services to policymakers, the MEI stimulates public policy debate and reforms based on sound economics and entrepreneurship.
-
COVID-1921 hours ago
FDA requires new warning on mRNA COVID shots due to heart damage in young men
-
Business19 hours ago
Carneyās new agenda faces old Canadian problems
-
Daily Caller16 hours ago
Blackouts Coming If America Continues With Biden-Era Green Frenzy, Trump Admin Warns
-
Indigenous20 hours ago
Internal emails show Canadian govāt doubted āmass gravesā narrative but went along with it
-
Bruce Dowbiggin22 hours ago
Eau Canada! Join Us In An Inclusive New National Anthem
-
Business2 days ago
CBC six-figure salaries soar
-
Addictions2 days ago
Can addiction be predictedāand prevented?
-
Addictions2 days ago
More young men want to restrict pornography: survey