Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Business

BC Ferries Deal With China Risks Canada’s Security

Published

7 minute read

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Scott McGregor

A BC Ferries contract with China risks national security, public transparency and Canadian safety. Why are we still looking the other way?

Scott McGregor exposes how a billion-dollar BC Ferries deal with a Chinese shipyard reflects a deeper failure: Canadian institutions are shielding Beijing’s interests—at taxpayers’ expense—while ignoring glaring national security risks.

BC Ferries, the taxpayer-owned company operating ferry services along the B.C. coast, didn’t just sign a billion-dollar shipbuilding contract in China; it handed Beijing leverage over Canadian infrastructure.

Behind the bureaucratic talk of cost and efficiency lies a deeper scandal: a taxpayer-funded deal that puts national security, public transparency and Canadian citizens at risk, all to benefit a hostile regime.

When theBreaker.news, an independent investigative outlet in BC, filed freedom of information requests to uncover the contract’s details, BC Ferries refused to release a single page. The excuse? Disclosure might threaten its financial position, safety and the “interests of third parties.”

This refusal didn’t happen in a vacuum. It came the same day Chinese President Xi Jinping stood next to Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Beijing, giving a vivid display of authoritarian solidarity.

BC Ferries’ secrecy is bad optics. It flies in the face of multiple rulings by the B.C. Information and Privacy Commissioner, who has repeatedly upheld the public’s right to see contracts signed by public bodies. Cities and Crown corporations have been ordered to disclose their agreements with FIFA, the international soccer governing body, and with B.C. Place Stadium.

In fact, public institutions have disclosed deals far less sensitive than this one. Yet BC Ferries, propped up by a $1-billion loan from the Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB), insists its Chinese shipbuilder must remain shielded from scrutiny. The result isn’t protection for taxpayers. It’s protection for Beijing’s leverage.

And that’s just the beginning. The more dangerous problem is legal. Canada has no bilateral agreements with China to guarantee fair legal treatment of its citizens. No non-prosecution provisions. No mutual legal assistance mechanisms. No safety net.

At home, corporations can sign remediation agreements to avoid prosecution if they cooperate and commit to reforms. But those agreements stop at Canada’s borders. They offer no protection for Canadians working in Weihai, the Chinese city where the vessels are built. If a dispute arises or Beijing flexes its power, those Canadians could face arbitrary detention, exit bans or national security charges. In a diplomatic crisis, they could become pawns.

This isn’t a theoretical risk. Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor spent nearly three years in Chinese prisons after Canada detained Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou. That episode exposed the Chinese Communist Party’s playbook of hostage diplomacy. It should have ruled out any deal that places Canadian citizens or Crown assets under Chinese jurisdiction.

Yet even with that memory still fresh, the arrangement continues, quietly, with little public debate.

What we’re witnessing is a textbook case of hybrid warfare. Economic deals masked as trade. State financing disguised as commercial contracts. Political leverage embedded in infrastructure projects. And Canada, still clinging to the outdated promises of globalization, is paying for its own exposure.

At the moment when Beijing is supplying components for Russia’s war machine, Ottawa is greenlighting the outsourcing of core coastal infrastructure to a state-owned Chinese shipyard.

Parliament appears to be taking notice of the situation. The House of Commons Transport Committee has initiated a review of the $1 billion federal loan associated with the BC Ferries deal. The expected witnesses for this review include the CEO of the corporation, the CEO of the Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB), Transport Minister Chrystia Freeland and Infrastructure Minister Gregor Robertson.

The review follows political pushback, including criticism from Freeland, who resigned from cabinet on Sept. 16, and had previously called the outsourcing decision “disappointing.”

This review is necessary because BC Ferries is a Crown-owned utility, governed by an NDP-appointed board and funded through federal support.

When a public entity conceals the terms of a massive contract and hands work to a Chinese state-controlled firm, it’s not just acting secretively. It’s normalizing a culture of opacity that weakens Canadian sovereignty and shields foreign interests from democratic accountability.

BC Ferries defends the deal by pointing to its projected economic benefits: four new major vessels, hybrid propulsion systems, 50,000 job-years and more than $4.5 billion in forecasted economic output.

But those figures come at the cost of strategic blindness.

Time and again, Canadian policymakers treat China like an ordinary business partner, even as the Chinese Communist Party uses law, finance and supply chains as tools of global influence. While other democracies are pulling back from partnerships with Chinese state firms, Canada looks the other way, tethered to outdated trade assumptions and short-term economics.

The remedy starts with sunlight. Contracts signed by public bodies must be disclosed, especially when they involve authoritarian regimes. But transparency is only the first step.

Canada must adopt a hybrid warfare lens for every major economic decision. That means asking hard questions: Does this deal strengthen or weaken our position? Does it open the door to foreign influence? Does it endanger Canadians abroad? Short-term savings can breed long-term dependency, and in China’s case, geopolitical exposure.

BC Ferries’ shipbuilding contract with China isn’t just a procurement mistake. It’s a warning.

Without legal safeguards, public oversight and strategic foresight, Canada isn’t just buying ferries; it’s handing over control.

And Canadians deserve better.

Scott McGregor is an intelligence consultant and co-author of The Mosaic Effect. He is a senior fellow at the Council on Countering Hybrid Warfare and writes here for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Business

Will Paramount turn the tide of legacy media and entertainment?

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Bill Flaig And Tom Carter

The recent leadership changes at Paramount Skydance suggest that the company may finally be ready to correct course after years of ideological drift, cultural activism posing as programming, and a pattern of self-inflicted financial and reputational damage.

Nowhere was this problem more visible than at CBS News, which for years operated as one of the most partisan and combative news organizations. Let’s be honest, CBS was the worst of an already left biased industry that stopped at nothing to censor conservatives. The network seemed committed to the idea that its viewers needed to be guided, corrected, or morally shaped by its editorial decisions.

This culminated in the CBS and 60 Minutes segment with Kamala Harris that was so heavily manipulated and so structurally misleading that it triggered widespread backlash and ultimately forced Paramount to settle a $16 million dispute with Donald Trump. That was not merely a legal or contractual problem. It was an institutional failure that demonstrated the degree to which political advocacy had overtaken journalistic integrity.

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.

Thank you!

For many longtime viewers across the political spectrum, that episode represented a clear breaking point. It became impossible to argue that CBS News was simply leaning left. It was operating with a mission orientation that prioritized shaping narratives rather than reporting truth. As a result, trust collapsed. Many of us who once had long-term professional, commercial, or intellectual ties to Paramount and CBS walked away.

David Ellison’s acquisition of Paramount marks the most consequential change to the studio’s identity in a generation. Ellison is not anchored to the old Hollywood ecosystem where cultural signaling and activist messaging were considered more important than story, audience appeal, or shareholder value.

His professional history in film and strategic business management suggests an approach grounded in commercial performance, audience trust, and brand rebuilding rather than ideological identity. That shift matters because Paramount has spent years creating content and news coverage that seemed designed to provoke or instruct viewers rather than entertain or inform them. It was an approach that drained goodwill, eroded market share, and drove entire segments of the viewing public elsewhere.

The appointment of Bari Weiss as the new chief editor of CBS News is so significant. Weiss has built her reputation on rejecting ideological conformity imposed from either side. She has consistently spoken out against antisemitism and the moral disorientation that emerges when institutions prioritize political messaging over honesty.

Her brand centers on the belief that journalism should clarify rather than obscure. During President Trump’s recent 60 Minutes interview, he praised Weiss as a “great person” and credited her with helping restore integrity and editorial seriousness inside CBS. That moment signaled something important. Paramount is no longer simply rearranging executives. It is rethinking identity.

The appointment of Makan Delrahim as Chief Legal Officer was an early indicator. Delrahim’s background at the Department of Justice, where he led antitrust enforcement, signals seriousness about governance, compliance, and restoring institutional discipline.

But the deeper and more meaningful shift is occurring at the ownership and editorial levels, where the most politically charged parts of Paramount’s portfolio may finally be shedding the habits that alienated millions of viewers.The transformation will not be immediate. Institutions develop habits, internal cultures, and incentive structures that resist correction. There will be internal opposition, particularly from staff and producers who benefited from the ideological culture that defined CBS News in recent years.

There will be critics in Hollywood who see any shift toward balance as a threat to their influence. And there will be outside voices who will insist that any move away from their preferred political posture is regression.

But genuine reform never begins with instant consensus. It begins with leadership willing to be clear about the mission.

Paramount has the opportunity to reclaim what once made it extraordinary. Not as a symbol. Not as a message distribution vehicle. But as a studio that understands that good storytelling and credible reporting are not partisan aims. They are universal aims. Entertainment succeeds when it connects with audiences rather than instructing them. Journalism succeeds when it pursues truth rather than victory.

In an era when audiences have more viewing choices than at any time in history, trust is an economic asset. Viewers are sophisticated. They recognize when they are being lectured rather than engaged. They know when editorial goals are political rather than informational. And they are willing to reward any institution that treats them with respect.

There is now reason to believe Paramount understands this. The leadership is changing. The tone is changing. The incentives are being reassessed.

It is not the final outcome. But it is a real beginning. As the great Winston Churchill once said; “Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning”.

For the first time in a long time, the door to cultural realignment in legacy media is open. And Paramount is standing at the threshold and has the capability to become a market leader once again. If Paramount acts, the industry will follow.

Bill Flaig and Tom Carter are the Co-Founders of The American Conservatives Values ETF, Ticker Symbol ACVF traded on the New York Stock Exchange. Ticker Symbol ACVF

Learn more at www.InvestConservative.com

Continue Reading

Business

Parliamentary Budget Officer begs Carney to cut back on spending

Published on

By Franco Terrazzano 

PBO slices through Carney’s creative accounting

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is calling on Prime Minister Mark Carney to cut spending following today’s bombshell Parliamentary Budget Officer report that criticizes the government’s definition of capital spending and promise to balance the operating budget.

“The reality is that Carney is continuing on a course of unaffordable borrowing and the PBO report shows government messaging about ‘balancing the operating budget’ is not credible,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “Carney is using creative accounting to hide the spiralling debt.”

Carney’s Budget 2025 splits the budget into operating and capital spending and promises to balance the operating budget by 2028-29.

However, today’s PBO budget report states that Carney’s definition of capital spending is “overly expansive.” Without using that “overly expansive” definition of capital spending, the government would run an $18 billion operating deficit in 2028-29, according to the PBO.

“Based on our definition, capital investments would total $217.3 billion over 2024-25 to 2029-30, which is approximately 30 per cent ($94 billion) lower compared to Budget 2025,” according to the PBO. “Moreover, based on our definition, the operating balance in Budget 2025 would remain in a deficit position over 2024-25 to 2029-30.”

The PBO states that the Carney government is using “a definition of capital investment that expands beyond the current treatment in the Public Accounts and international practice.” The report specifically points out that “by including corporate income tax expenditures, investment tax credits and operating (production) subsidies, the framework blends policy measures with capital formation.”

The federal government plans to borrow about $80 billion this year, according to Budget 2025. Carney has no plan stop borrowing money and balance the budget. Debt interest charges will cost taxpayers $55.6 billion this year, which is more than the federal government will send to the provinces in health transfers ($54.7 billion) or collect through the GST ($54.4 billion).

“Carney isn’t balancing anything when he borrows tens of billions of dollars every year,” Terrazzano said. “Instead of applying creative accounting to the budget numbers, Carney needs to cut spending and debt.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X