Connect with us

National

Fentanyl, Firearms, and Failures: Canada’s Border in Crisis Mode

Published

17 minute read

The Opposition with Dan Knight

Opposition Exposes Legislative Gaps and Diplomatic Tensions as Trudeau Government Defends Record

In the latest session of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security (SECU), the Trudeau government’s border security strategy faced fierce scrutiny.

MPs from the Conservative Party, Bloc Québécois, and NDP unleashed a barrage of criticism, exposing deep flaws in how Canada handles fentanyl trafficking, organized crime, and illegal migration. Witnesses from the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) and Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) offered opening statements aimed at highlighting their agencies’ efforts but quickly found themselves on the defensive, trying to justify their performance amid systemic failures.


CBSA and RCMP: Opening Statements Outline Growing Challenges

CBSA President Erin O’Gorman opened the SECU meeting with what can only be described as a pre-packaged, self-congratulatory performance. She boasted about “proactive” border security measures, highlighting joint operations with U.S. Customs and Border Protection and investments in drones and sensors. Let me translate that for you: a handful of success stories sprinkled with just enough tech jargon to distract from the gaping holes in Canada’s border defenses.

RCMP Commissioner Michael Duheme followed suit, painting a rosy picture of collaboration through Integrated Border Enforcement Teams (IBETs) and intelligence-sharing with the U.S. He acknowledged the challenges of tackling synthetic drugs like fentanyl but stopped short of explaining why Canada still lacks the resources to do so effectively. It was the same tired tune—effort without impact, talking points without solutions.

But the cracks in their narrative were impossible to miss. Both officials hinted at the enormity of the task they face and the glaring limitations of current resources and laws. And as the opposition MPs made clear, the gaps in leadership and accountability couldn’t be ignored. For all the talk of “progress,” the testimony revealed a border security system teetering on the edge of failure.

Organized Crime: Exploiting Systemic Weaknesses

Testimony revealed the alarming extent to which organized crime syndicates exploit Canada’s border vulnerabilities. Commissioner Duheme admitted that smugglers are using well-established routes to move firearms, fentanyl, and other contraband. Conservative MP Dane Lloyd wasted no time zeroing in on this issue, pointing out that while 750 firearms have been seized in 2024, countless others continue to flood Canadian streets, fueling gang violence and crime.

But it didn’t stop there. O’Gorman acknowledged that stolen Canadian vehicles are regularly smuggled out of the country, with some linked to terrorism financing. She admitted that CBSA’s enforcement efforts are hampered by a glaring legislative gap: ports are not legally required to provide inspection spaces for exports. Lloyd slammed this lack of oversight, declaring, “How can this government allow stolen vehicles to fund terrorism while ignoring calls for mandatory inspections?”


Fentanyl Crisis: A Growing Threat

The fentanyl epidemic emerged as another key issue, with MPs challenging the adequacy of current policies. O’Gorman highlighted CBSA’s success in seizing 4.9 kilograms of fentanyl in 2024, most of which was destined for Europe rather than the U.S. However, she acknowledged that small shipments of fentanyl precursors—dual-use chemicals legally imported and diverted to illicit production—remain a significant challenge.

NDP MP Alistair MacGregor pressed the witnesses on why the government has not tightened regulations on precursors. “We know how these chemicals are being exploited, yet the system remains open to abuse,” he said. RCMP Commissioner Duheme supported calls for stronger regulations, noting that criminal networks are becoming increasingly sophisticated in circumventing existing controls.

Conservative MP Doug Shipley didn’t hold back in his critique of the Trudeau government’s apparent complacency when it comes to border security. Referencing President-Elect Donald Trump’s scathing comments about Canada’s role in the U.S. opioid crisis, Shipley’s line of questioning cut straight to the heart of the issue: why does the government only react when faced with external pressure?

“Why does it take U.S. pressure and Trump’s rhetoric to get this government to act?” Shipley demanded, pointing to a troubling pattern where meaningful action on key issues like fentanyl trafficking only occurs after international embarrassment. The timing of Canada’s recent policy adjustments, including visa tightening and enforcement boosts under the Safe Third Country Agreement, raises serious questions about whether these moves were proactive measures or hasty reactions to avoid diplomatic fallout.

Shipley underscored the growing perception that the Trudeau government is more concerned with managing optics than tackling the underlying problems. “We have a border security crisis that has been ignored for years,” he said. “The Liberals have known about these issues—the fentanyl, the illegal crossings, the smuggling—and yet, nothing changes until a spotlight is shone on Canada’s failures.”

The backdrop of Trump’s rhetoric added fuel to the fire. His comments have not only strained Canada-U.S. relations but also amplified the stakes, with the threat of economic consequences like tariffs looming in the background. Shipley’s frustration echoed a broader sentiment among opposition MPs: that Canada’s leadership lacks the urgency and resolve to address border security challenges head-on, instead waiting for external forces to dictate the agenda.

The question Shipley posed wasn’t just rhetorical—it struck at the core of a government that has repeatedly been accused of putting politics over public safety. And in a system where criminal networks and traffickers are thriving, the consequences of inaction are no longer hypothetical—they’re devastatingly real.


Illegal Migration and Diplomatic Tensions

Illegal migration across the Canada-U.S. border also came under intense scrutiny. Bloc MP Kristina Michaud raised concerns about the surge in southbound crossings, which peaked at 7,000 individuals in mid-2024, a 680% increase since 2015. Although O’Gorman pointed to policy changes like visa tightening and the expanded Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) as reasons for recent declines, opposition MPs remained skeptical.

Conservatives also linked the migration issue to potential diplomatic fallout with the U.S., particularly Trump’s proposed 25% tariffs on Canadian goods. “If this government can’t control the border, how can we expect to maintain good relations with our largest trading partner?” asked MP Glen Motz.

Canada’s Border Crisis: Solutions Are Clear, Leadership Is Missing


Let’s be real: the state of Canada’s border security isn’t just a policy issue; it’s a crisis. But if we’re going to have an honest conversation about solutions—and not just rhetoric—then we need to ask tough questions about what’s really required to fix this mess.

First, funding. The government loves to talk about its investments, but where is the money actually going? Testimony at SECU made it clear: the agencies on the front lines, like CBSA and the RCMP, are being asked to do more with less. They’re intercepting firearms, stolen vehicles, and fentanyl shipments, but they’re stretched thin. If we want real results, we need to ensure funding increases are targeted—not just wasted on bureaucracy. Drones, sensors, and data-sharing systems need to be deployed across the board, not in isolated pockets.

Then there’s the legislation. Canada’s laws are riddled with loopholes that make life easier for smugglers and harder for law enforcement. Case in point: ports aren’t even required to provide inspection spaces for exports. Let me repeat that—criminals are smuggling stolen vehicles and contraband out of the country because our laws don’t demand basic oversight at our ports. This isn’t rocket science. Mandate those inspections. Close the gaps on precursor chemicals. Hold shipping companies accountable. What’s the holdup?

And finally, diplomacy. The Liberals love to brand themselves as global players, yet our closest ally—the United States—is threatening tariffs because they don’t think Canada is doing enough on border security. Instead of caving to political pressure, how about showing some backbone? Share the data. Prove our contributions. Demand that the U.S. work with us as partners, not as scapegoats. But that requires leadership—real leadership—which seems to be in short supply in Ottawa.

The solutions are on the table. What’s missing is the political will to act. This isn’t just about protecting our borders; it’s about protecting Canadian families, Canadian jobs, and Canadian sovereignty. If Trudeau’s government can’t deliver, it’s time for leadership that can.


Excuses vs. Accountability on Border Security

When it comes to Canada’s border security, the political divide couldn’t be clearer. On one side, you have the Trudeau Liberals, spinning their tired narrative of progress, insisting they’ve done enough to secure our borders. On the other, you’ve got the opposition—Conservatives, Bloc, and NDP MPs alike—hammering away at the glaring failures of this government. And let me tell you, the contrasts are striking.

The Liberals came to this SECU meeting armed with buzzwords. They touted investments in drones, sensors, and new technologies. Liberal MP Anita Vandenbeld claimed these measures have led to “real results,” pointing to declines in illegal crossings and seizures of fentanyl. Sounds good on paper, right? But dig a little deeper, and you’ll see the cracks.

Conservative MPs like Doug Shipley and Dane Lloyd weren’t buying it. Shipley grilled witnesses on why, despite all this so-called progress, southbound illegal crossings into the U.S. are up 680% since 2015. “Why does this government always wait for a crisis before taking action?” he asked. Lloyd, meanwhile, exposed how criminals are exploiting Canada’s ports to smuggle stolen vehicles overseas—vehicles that fund international terrorism. And what’s the Liberal response? More consultations, more discussions. In other words, nothing.

Then there’s the Bloc’s Kristina Michaud. She hammered away at the government’s inability to close legislative gaps, like mandating export inspections at ports. Michaud even questioned whether the Liberals have the political will to enforce their own policies. That’s a devastating critique from Quebec’s representative, and it highlights the regional frustrations with Ottawa’s top-down approach.

Even the NDP, who often side with the Liberals, weren’t letting them off the hook. Alistair MacGregor zeroed in on fentanyl precursors, pointing out how weak regulations allow criminal networks to exploit Canada’s legal system. “When will this government stop talking about solutions and start implementing them?” he demanded. A fair question, given that these loopholes have existed for years.

So here’s the divide: the Liberals are clinging to their talking points, pretending their investments are enough, while the opposition is laser-focused on the systemic failures, legislative inaction, and diplomatic blunders that have allowed this crisis to spiral.

It’s a classic case of two narratives—one selling excuses, the other demanding accountability. And the real tragedy? While Ottawa debates, Canadian families are left to deal with the consequences of illegal drugs, rising crime, and stolen property funding terrorism. This isn’t just a political debate; it’s a national emergency.

Final Thoughts

Canada is a nation built on resilience, hard work, and a commitment to protecting its people. But what we’re seeing now is a betrayal of those values. Our borders aren’t just weak—they’re dangerously open to exploitation by criminals, traffickers, and opportunists. The SECU hearings made one thing abundantly clear: the Trudeau government has failed to defend the integrity of this country.

Lack of resources. Outdated laws. Political inaction. This isn’t governance—it’s negligence. While the CBSA and RCMP are doing everything they can with the tools they’re given, it’s not enough. Why? Because the leadership they need is nowhere to be found. Instead, we have Justin Trudeau—Ottawa’s talking head—more concerned with photo ops and platitudes than with keeping Canadians safe.

This is a system designed to fail, and Canadians are paying the price. It doesn’t have to be this way. With real leadership—leadership that prioritizes security, accountability, and action—we can fix this. We can close the legislative gaps, give our border agencies the resources they need, and restore Canada’s sovereignty.

It’s time to demand more from Ottawa. Not excuses, not buzzwords, but real, tangible change. Because this isn’t just about border security—it’s about protecting Canadian families, defending our economy, and safeguarding the values that define us as a nation. Canada deserves better. And if Justin Trudeau can’t deliver, then it’s time for someone who can.

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

103 Conflicts and Counting Unprecedented Ethics Web of Prime Minister Mark Carney

Published on

The Opposition with Dan Knight  Dan Knight's avatar 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 “climate leadership,” Prime Minister Mark Carney’s official conflict-of-interest screen has been released by the Ethics Commissioner—and what it reveals is nothing short of staggering. Not five entities. Not a dozen. One hundred and three. That’s 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 Canada’s top political office. The very same Brookfield that owns energy projects, pipelines, nuclear companies, real estate empires, carbon offset schemes you name it, they’ve got a piece of it. And now, they’ve got a former executive running the country.

We’re told it’s all perfectly legal. We’re told Carney has “recused himself.” 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 that’s beginning to look a whole lot like a money-printing operation for the global elite.

The deeper one digs into Prime Minister Mark Carney’s ethics disclosure, the clearer the picture becomes: what’s 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 Canada’s 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 Carney’s ethics screen: nearly 60 out of 103, even after accounting for duplicates. These aren’t passive holdings they’re 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.

Brookfield’s 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. Carney’s screen includes Brookfield’s recent $8 billion acquisition of Westinghouse Electric Company, a nuclear power behemoth now positioned to benefit from Canada’s federal nuclear incentives and SMR (small modular reactor) program. Other flagged investments like Entropy and Carbon TerraVault fall directly into carbon credit and offset schemes—markets heavily influenced by federal regulation and incentive design.

Let’s stop pretending. What we’re witnessing here isn’t just conflict of interest, it’s a complete merger of state power and corporate ambition, all dressed up in the language of moral urgency. The Ethics Commissioner’s so-called “screen” for Mark Carney? It’s a joke. A checklist. A bureaucratic fig leaf meant to reassure you that everything’s above board. But it’s not.

Because here’s the truth: Carney is policing himself. He’s supposed to recuse himself from decisions that benefit the 103 entities he’s tied to many of which he helped create or oversee as Vice-Chair of Brookfield Asset Management. But who decides if he’s 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 to sell you the green grift. There’s no third-party oversight, no transparency on what’s actually in his so-called blind trust, and no disclosure of the carried interest he may still be entitled to from Brookfield’s 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 “transition” sector that Brookfield spent years buying into is now flush with green subsidies, ESG guarantees, and taxpayer-backed investment shields. This isn’t the free market at work, it’s a strategic payoff, engineered by someone who’s now running one of the most powerful G7 economies.

And again, none of it is illegal. That’s the most damning part. Because legality isn’t the standard here. The standard is integrity, and that’s nowhere to be found. The scale of this overlap isn’t just large. It’s systemic. It’s built into the very foundation of the Carney government’s climate policy. The same man who structured these funds is now the man signing off on the policies that make them profitable.

Diana Fox Carney’s 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 wife’s career trajectory paints an equally troubling picture of how the same elite networks driving Canada’s 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 that’s become a quiet powerhouse in shaping global ESG narratives. It’s also the same firm where Gerald Butts—Trudeau’s longtime fixer and architect of the federal climate playbook—now serves as vice chair. Add in former journalist Evan Solomon and even Conservative stalwart John Baird, and you’ve got a bipartisan consultancy stacked 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.” That’s nearly half a million dollars in taxpayer money handed out without competition, to a firm employing the sitting Prime Minister’s wife—and his former colleagues. Just coincidence, right?

But Eurasia Group is only the start. Diana’s reach extends far beyond advisory calls. She’s connected to:

  • BeyondNetZero, a climate equity fund backed by U.S. private capital giant General Atlantic.
  • Helios CLEAR, investing in African climate “resilience.”
  • ClientEarth U.S. and the Shell Foundation, both pushing aggressive environmental litigation and policy influence.
  • Canada 2020, a Trudeau-aligned think tank that’s 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 you’re 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 husband’s leadership.

Now, legally, Diana is in the clear. She’s not a public office holder. But that’s the point. The rules weren’t designed for this new class of political operator—the 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.

“Mark Carney must explain why he kept these conflicts secret from voters until after the election,” Poilievre wrote. “Now 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.”

In a second post earlier that morning, Poilievre challenged the credibility of Carney’s 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 Carney’s knowledge or influence:

“Otherwise, he will always know how political decisions can affect his personal wealth.”

These statements mark the strongest opposition rebuke yet of the Carney government’s financial entanglements. Poilievre’s 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 outrage—not just among Conservatives but from broader accountability watchdogs. With over 100 entities flagged, many of them tied to green energy, infrastructure, and climate finance—the same sectors receiving billions in federal spending—the Conservative leader has positioned himself as the voice of those demanding a full forensic audit of the Prime Minister’s 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 Carney—the global banker, the climate envoy, the Liberal savior—the establishment is looking the other way. Poilievre’s Conservatives aren’t. And they’re turning this into a defining issue of integrity and accountability in Canadian politics.

Let’s Call This What It Is

This isn’t subtle. This isn’t nuanced. This is what a grift looks like—on 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 Bermuda—and that’s before we even get to his wife’s global consultancy work, advising firms that quietly gobble up federal contracts without a single public tender.

And here’s the thing: we weren’t 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 wasn’t just a banker—but a banker with a boardroom’s worth of financial strings still attached.

Now imagine—just for a moment—if it had been Pierre Poilievre. Or Andrew Scheer. Or any 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. They’d be calling him compromised, unfit, a foreign agent.

But because it’s their guy—because it’s the Liberal elite’s banker-in-chief—we’re told it’s fine. It’s 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. They’re not liberals. They’re grifters—grifting 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 didn’t vote for this. They weren’t told the truth. And now the entire climate agenda, the whole “just transition,” looks more like a get-rich scheme for the political class than any serious public mission.

It’s 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

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

Invite Friends

Continue Reading

Business

Most Canadians say retaliatory tariffs on American goods contribute to raising the price of essential goods at home

Published on

  • 77 per cent say Canada’s 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 Ottawa’s high-tax, high-spending approach and Canadians’ level of satisfaction.

“Canadians are not on board with Ottawa’s fiscal path,” says Samantha Dagres, communications manager at the MEI. “From housing to trade policy, Canadians feel they’re being squeezed by a government that is increasingly an impediment to their standard of living.”

More than half of Canadians (54 per cent) say Ottawa is spending too much, while only six per cent think it is spending too little.

A majority (54 per cent) also do not believe federal dollars are being effectively allocated to address Canada’s most important issues, and a similar proportion (55 per cent) are dissatisfied with the transparency and accountability in the government’s 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 per cent) of respondents say they are not getting their money’s worth from the provincial government.

Not coincidentally, Quebecers face the highest marginal tax rates in North America.

On the question of Canada’s response to the U.S. trade dispute, nearly eight in 10 Canadians (77 per cent) agree that Ottawa’s retaliatory tariffs on American products are driving up the cost of everyday goods.

“Canadians understand that tariffs are just another form of taxation, and that they are the ones footing the bill for any political posturing,” adds Ms. Dagres. “Ottawa 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.”

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.

“Taxpayers are not just ATMs for government – and if they are going to pay such exorbitant taxes, you’d think the least they could expect is good service in return,” says Ms. Dagres. “Canadians are increasingly distrustful of a government that believes every problem can be solved with higher taxes.”

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.

 

Continue Reading

Trending

X