Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Opinion

New Brunswick premier bans ‘sex-ed’ group from schools after presentation on porn, immoral sex acts

Published

7 minute read

New Brunswick Premier Blaine Higgs

From LifeSiteNews

By Jonathon Van Maren

Sharing slides of a presentation given by a third-party group to New Brunswick school children that contained questions about pornography, masturbation and ‘anal’ sex, Premier Blaine Higgs said he is ‘furious’ and that the group has been banned, ‘effective immediately.’

Once again, New Brunswick Premier Blaine Higgs is showing Canadian politicians how to effectively advocate for common sense socially conservative policies. On May 24, he tweeted out a photograph of a slide from a sex education presentation given in a New Brunswick school. The slide featured red lips closing on a lollipop, the title “Thirsty For The Talk,” and the questions: “Is it normal to watch porn like people watch TV series?”; “Do girls masturbate?” and: “Is it good or bad to do anal?” 

Premier Higgs posted his response: 

A number of concerned parents have shared with me photos and screenshots of clearly inappropriate material that was presented recently in at least four New Brunswick high schools. 

To say I am furious would be a gross understatement. 

This presentation was not part of the New Brunswick curriculum and the content was not flagged for parents in advance. My office has been told by Department of Education officials that this was supposed to be a presentation on HPV.  

However, the group shared materials well beyond the scope of an HPV presentation. The fact that this was shared shows either improper vetting was done, the group misrepresented the content they would share … or both. 

This group will not be allowed to present again at New Brunswick schools, effective immediately. 

Our government will have further discussions about whether additional rules about third-party presentations need to be updated.  

Children should be protected, and parents should be respected. 

I want parents to know that we are with you. We will continue to make decisions based on the principle that parents need to be aware of what is happening at schools, so they can make informed parenting decisions. 

Do you think we need stronger rules about third-party presentations in our schools? I want to hear directly from you. Take our survey by clicking here: 

https://newbrunswickpc.ca/school 

Presentations like this – and indeed, presentations containing far more graphic material – are common in Canadian public schools. Plenty of schools actually feature in-house content that is substantially worse than this. But every time a debate about explicit, how-to sexual content in schools erupts, progressive activists and politicians dodge the issue by retreating to vagueness. Instead of defending the idea of an activist group like Planned Parenthood coming in to talk to students about why anal sex is just fine, they insist that this content is essential for “inclusion” and “tolerance” while scrupulously avoiding the specifics. Inevitably, most of the press coverage of the debate fails to include the specifics of what actually upset parents in the first place, and instead presents objectors as opposed to common sense progressive educational policies. 

When the explicit content in question is described, however, progressives are denied the opportunity to defend their policy of encouraging and introducing fringe sex acts to children in vague, friendly, liberal-sounding buzzwords. Last year, for example, Planned Parenthood got caught handing out graphic “ABC” sex cards to students as young as 14 that explained, for example, how they could engage in “yellow and brown showers” (urinating and defecating on their partners). Plenty of other dangerous and immoral sex acts are encouraged, with Planned Parenthood’s presentation stating that each sexual urge must be “affirmed” – the amorality, in short, was up front. 

But when the sex cards were covered in a handful of press outlets, parents were outraged the Saskatchewan government got involved. Planned Parenthood is now banned from presenting in Saskatchewan schools (although it was never explained why they were invited to do so in the first place). Planned Parenthood was reportedly confused by this decision, as they didn’t see the problem with the content they had distributed – but the only reason they were denied access to Canadian kids is because the graphic sexual information they were distributing was exposed publicly. 

Premier Blaine Higgs appears to have realized that to implement common sense policies, exposing what is actually being taught in public schools is the only way forward. Progressives cannot be allowed to hide behind buzzwords like “toleration” and “inclusion.” Politicians and activists – including the prime minister – who wish to defend this content should be made to defend specifics, and the only way to force them to do that is to show the public what the kids are being taught in schools.  

Featured Image

Jonathon Van Maren is a public speaker, writer, and pro-life activist. His commentary has been translated into more than eight languages and published widely online as well as print newspapers such as the Jewish Independent, the National Post, the Hamilton Spectator and others. He has received an award for combating anti-Semitism in print from the Jewish organization B’nai Brith. His commentary has been featured on CTV Primetime, Global News, EWTN, and the CBC as well as dozens of radio stations and news outlets in Canada and the United States.

He speaks on a wide variety of cultural topics across North America at universities, high schools, churches, and other functions. Some of these topics include abortion, pornography, the Sexual Revolution, and euthanasia. Jonathon holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree in history from Simon Fraser University, and is the communications director for the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform.

Jonathon’s first book, The Culture War, was released in 2016.

Business

Who owns Canada’s public debt?

Published on

The Audit David Clinton's avatar David Clinton

Remember when thinking about our debt crisis was just scary?

During his recent election campaign, Mark Carney announced plans to add $225 billion (with a “b”) to federal debt over the next four years. That, to put it mildly, is a consequential number. I thought it would be useful to put it into context, both in terms of our existing debt, and of some social and political changes those plans could spark.

How much money does Canada currently owe? According to Statistics Canada’s statement of government operations and balance sheet, as of Q4 2024, that number would be nearly $954 billion. That’s compared with the $621 billion we owed back in 2015.

The Audit is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

How much does interest on our current debt cost us each year? The official Budget 2024 document predicted that we’d pay around $51 billion each year to just service our debt. But that’s before piling on the new $225 billion.

We – and the governments we elect – might be tempted to imagine that the cash behind public loans just magically appears out of thin air. In fact, most Canadian government debt is financed through debt securities such as marketable bonds, treasury bills, and foreign currency debt instruments. And those bonds and bills are owned by buyers.

Who are those buyers? Many of them are probably Canadian banks and other financial institutions. But as of February 2025, according to Statistics Canada, it was international portfolio investors who owned $527 billion of Canadian federal government debt securities.

Most of those foreign investors are probably from (relatively) friendly countries like the U.S. and U.K. But that’s certainly not the whole story. Although I couldn’t find direct data breaking down the details, there are some broadly related investment income numbers that might be helpful.

Specifically, all foreign investments into both public and private entities in Canada in 2024 amounted to $219 billion dollars. In that same year, investments from “all other countries” totaled $51 billion. What Statistics Canada means by “all other countries” covers all countries besides the US, UK, EU, Japan, and the 38 OECD nations.

The elephant in the “all other countries” room has to be China.

So let’s break this down. The $527 billion foreign-owned investment debt I mentioned earlier represents around 55 percent of our total debt.¹ And if the “all other countries” ratio in general foreign investments holds true² for federal public debt, then it’s realistic to assume that the federal government currently owes around 11 percent of its debt to government and business entities associated with the Chinese Communist Party.

By all accounts, an 11 percent share in a government’s debt counts as leverage. Given China’s recent history, our ability to act independently in international and even domestic affairs could be compromised. But it could also be destabilizing, exposing us to risk if China’s economy faces turmoil which could disrupt our ability to roll over debt or secure new financing.

Mark Carney’s plan to add another 20 percent to our debt over the next four years will only increase our exposure to these – and many more – risks. Canadian voters have made an interesting choice.

“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” – H.L. Mencken

1 Although I should note that, according to the government’s 2022-2023 Debt Management Report, “in 2022-23, non-resident investors held 29 per cent of Government of Canada securities”.
2 To be honest, there really isn’t enough data available to be confident in this assumption

The Audit is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Continue Reading

Crime

Operation Take Back America Strikes Chinese Money Launderers in Charlotte Cartel Case

Published on

Sam Cooper's avatar Sam Cooper

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — Striking a cell capable of washing $100 million within what U.S. counter-narcotics officials describe as a half-trillion-dollar global enterprise, federal prosecutors have secured convictions against three men tied to a China-based transnational laundering syndicate, exposing how Mexican cartel drug proceeds flowed quietly through Charlotte banks as overdose deaths surged across the Carolinas.

The case, centered in Charlotte, North Carolina, reveals the concealed infrastructure enabling Mexican cartels to convert fentanyl profits into clean capital, aided by sophisticated Chinese professional launderers operating like underwriters and rogue accountants—embedding illicit funds in regional banks using fake identities and a dense lattice of shell companies.

Prosecutors say Maoxuan Xia, 29, of China; Shao Neng Lin, 58, of Baldwin Park, California; and Zhou Yu, 42, of China, laundered more than $92 million in drug proceeds through this underground system. Court records show the trio used false documentation and coordinated deposits to move over $700,000 through Charlotte-area financial institutions alone.

Donald Im, a former top DEA illicit finance expert, said the system is designed so that all roads ultimately lead to Beijing’s treasury—with narcotics proceeds flowing back to China through laundering networks, while cartels handle the production and distribution of synthetic opioids sourced from Chinese factories.

The Charlotte case offers a rare, granular view into how that system functions on the ground. Xia served as a primary collector, retrieving cash from cartel-linked operatives across the United States. In less than two years, he laundered over $30 million. Lin and Yu operated back-end accounts, managing shell firms that each moved approximately $20 million. All three men entered guilty pleas this spring.

Investigators describe the laundering structure as part of a wider financial ecosystem anchored in Chinese underground banking hubs—active in cities such as Vancouver, Toronto, Mexico City, New York and Los Angeles. These operations pair U.S. drug money with Chinese nationals looking to move renminbi out of the mainland, exploiting capital flight demand to create an opaque, dollar-based network of cash flow. Funds are then reinvested in electronics exports, real estate, and layered wire transfers—largely beyond the reach of Western regulators.

The Charlotte convictions come amid a regional overdose emergency. In 2023, South Carolina reported 44.7 overdose deaths per 100,000 residents, far exceeding the U.S. average of 31.3. Georgia recorded 2,687 overdose deaths in 2022, a 300 percent increase since 2010. In North Carolina, more than 36,000 people have died from drug overdoses since 2000, with over 4,000 deaths recorded in 2021 alone. Fentanyl now accounts for nearly 80 percent of opioid fatalities in the Carolinas.

Taken together, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Georgia form one of the most intensely affected overdose corridors in North America. Only British Columbia—where Vancouver’s urban fentanyl crisis remains in declared emergency—and West Virginia report comparably higher death rates. British Columbia recorded 48.5 overdose deaths per 100,000 residents in 2024; West Virginia reached 80.9 per 100,000 in 2022.

A parallel indictment in South Carolina, unsealed in April, further illustrates China’s financial blueprint. Prosecutors charged Nasir Ullah, 28, and Naim Ullah, 32, of Sumter, along with Puquan Huang, 49, of Buford, Georgia, with laundering millions in cartel-linked proceeds. According to court filings, the men concealed cash in Sumter-area properties before converting it into overseas electronics shipments to Hong Kong and Dubai. Investigators allege the group was linked to broader laundering cells stretching into Asia and the Middle East.

While no financial institutions were charged in the Charlotte case, the use of fraudulent documents and synthetic identities to move large sums underscores continuing vulnerabilities in U.S. bank compliance systems—particularly in regional markets where oversight mechanisms may lag behind the sophistication of illicit finance networks.

The case was prosecuted under Operation Take Back America, a multi-agency U.S. initiative focused on dismantling the financial backbone of transnational fentanyl trafficking. Officials involved say targeting launderers may yield more strategic disruption than intercepting drug shipments alone—striking directly at the revenue pipelines keeping the trade alive.

Im, who led transnational threat targeting units within DEA’s Special Operations Division, has long studied the convergence of criminal enterprise and state-sanctioned economic leverage. In his assessment, Chinese laundering brokers serve both cartel clients and parallel financial objectives of the state—helping the proceeds of Western fentanyl sales find their way into Belt and Road infrastructure loans, real estate portfolios, and capital-export schemes tied to China’s global influence-building.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Invite your friends and earn rewards

If you enjoy The Bureau, share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.

Invite Friends

Continue Reading

Trending

X