Connect with us


The federal government wants Canadians to eat bugs.


10 minute read

A few (very few) media outlets have picked up on this recent news release from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation regarding the human consumption of.. Bugs!

Yuck right? Well don’t panic. They’re not quite ready to swap your bowl of Count Chocula for cocoa-flavoured crickets just yet. However it does appear the Liberal government is hoping to put bugs on your menu. The article from the CTF is included below so I urge you to read on because it’s really interesting (and for those with a queasy stomach, just a tad disturbing).

But before you do that, a couple of observations.

First. This is NOT another win for the annoying conspiracy theory people. Sure they may have been spouting off about forcing us to eat bugs, but that doesn’t make this a classic conspiracy theory.

When it comes to conspiracy theories, most of us have always concluded there are just two types of people. There are the KOOKS. And then there are the people who do their best to avoid the kooks.  Let’s call the first group the Flat Earthers, and the second group, Everyone Else (or the Rest of Us if you please).

Flat Earthers use evidence no one can verify to draw ridiculous conclusions and make strange accusations. Governments insisting we eat bugs may sound like a ridiculous conclusion formed by evidence no one can verify, but it turns out this is not the case at all.

Why is it that “The Liberal Government Wants Us To Eat Bugs” is not a ‘classic’ conspiracy theory?

Well it’s because of the words ‘conspiracy’ and ‘theory’.  They just don’t apply.

The Oxford Dictionary defines conspiracy as “a secret plan by a group of people to do something harmful or illegal.”  For one thing there’s nothing illegal about adding bugs to our diet. We’ve never had to make a law about it.  Politicians like getting elected, and so it never occurred to them to force bugs onto our plates. Sure you’ll see them flipping pancakes and picking hot dogs off a bbq, but that’s about as ‘harmful’ as they’re willing to get. So there’s nothing illegal and nothing harmful going on. That leaves the part about being a secret.

To prove this isn’t a secret I’m afraid I’m going to have to put 2 and 2 together because we have to talk about the World Economic Forum. They might not be shouting it from the mountaintops, but the World Economic Forum isn’t hiding the fact they’d like us to replace meat protein with bugs. It’s only a secret if you’ve never taken the time to read “Why we need to give insects the role they deserve in our food systems“, or “5 reasons why eating insects could reduce climate change“.

You might think our trusted sources of information would look into this because food is something their readers tend to eat almost every day. Sometimes more than once. They might not even have to go to Davos to check it out. News reporters bump into Deputy PM Chrystia Freeland in the hallways on Parliament Hill all the time. Chrystia Freeland is on the World Economic Forum Board of Trustees If you click the link you can see her there, third person down on the right. If Deputy PM Freeland doesn’t know where to find these articles on the WEF website, as a Board of Trustee member she’ll know who to ask. So this certainly isn’t illegal or particularly harmful, and it’s only a secret to those who don’t read these things or have these things read to them by the information sources we’ve always trusted. The Liberal government might not talk about sharing goals with the WEF every day, but when Canada’s Deputy PM is on the WEF’s Board of Trustees let’s just say it would be odd to think they’re at odds.

The other word in play here is “theory”.  When it comes to “conspiracy theory”, the word theory means “theoretical”, as in a theory, but not really happening. Again with the Oxford, second meaning applies here, “that could possibly exist, happen or be true, although this is unlikely”.

One could make a weak argument that Canada’s Deputy PM only goes to Davos to exchange stories with the rich and famous about how ridiculously hard it is to drive the speed limit in Alberta. One ‘theory’ is that she had to make it all the way back to Ottawa in an EV before it got cold. Regardless. Canada’s Deputy PM is a member of the WEF Board of Trustees. So although it could be a coincidence, it is not a theory that the federal government is funding bug – food research.  As you’ll see below, the liberals are paying companies to ” promote the consumption of “roasted crickets” or “cricket powder” mixed-in with your morning bowl of cereal. ”

The fact the WEF has been talking about this for years now, the fact our Deputy Prime Minister is on the WEF Board of Trustees, and the fact the federal government is now funding  research meant to change Canadians from people who stomp on bugs into people who chomp on bugs.. Well that pretty much takes the theoretical part right out of it.

Now that you’re hungry for more, here is the news release from a new trusted information source, the CTF.

By Ryan Thorpe of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

Taste the crunch: cricket corporate welfare cost $420K

Bon apétit.

The federal government spent $420,023 since 2018 subsidizing companies that turn crickets into human food.

“Canadians are struggling as inflation pushes up grocery bills, but subsidizing snacks made out of bugs doesn’t sound like the right solution for taxpayers,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “If Prime Minister Justin Trudeau wants to take a bite out of crunchy crickets, he can do it without taking a bite out of taxpayers’ wallets.”

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation gathered the list of cricket corporate welfare deals by reviewing the federal government’s proactive disclosure of grants and contributions.

On two separate occasions, the feds cut cheques to a Montreal-based company called NAAK Inc., for a combined cost to taxpayers of $171,695.

The co-founders of NAAK were “introduced … to the benefits of adding insects to (their) diet” by a friend and describe their mission as “democratizing insect consumption.”

NAAK specializes in “cricket energy bars,” but a portion of its corporate welfare money was earmarked for developing other cricket products, including “steaks, sausages and falafels.”

NAAK is one of five companies producing crickets for human consumption that have received corporate welfare deals from the feds in recent years.

Table: Corporate welfare deals, 2018-2022


Number of subsidies

Total cost of subsidies




Entologik Inc.



Prairie Cricket Farms



Gaia Protein



Casa Bonita Foods



Casa Bonita Foods wants to “manufacture high protein snacks made with cricket flour,” while Prairie Cricket Farms promotes the consumption of “roasted crickets” or “cricket powder” mixed-in with your morning bowl of cereal.

The founder of Entologik claims insects are the “protein of the future” and wants to grow the company into “the largest producers and processor of edible insects in Canada.”

“The feds are having their ‘let them eat crickets’ moment,” Terrazzano said. “If someone can sell crickets as food, we wish them the best of luck, but taxpayers shouldn’t be paying for it.”

An additional $8.7 million in subsidies went to Aspire Food Group, which operates a cricket processing plant in London, Ont. In total, the company received four separate handouts.

While the company is primarily geared toward pet food production, its owner said about 10 per cent of its business uses crickets for human food.

After 15 years as a TV reporter with Global and CBC and as news director of RDTV in Red Deer, Duane set out on his own 2008 as a visual storyteller. During this period, he became fascinated with a burgeoning online world and how it could better serve local communities. This fascination led to Todayville, launched in 2016.

Follow Author

Bruce Dowbiggin

Irish Saying: Is This A Private Fight Or Can Anyone Join?

Published on

There’s no crying in baseball. And there’s no fighting in golf. Unless LIV is involved.

Don’t tell the participants in the Ryder Cup this past weekend. Under the sunny skies of Rome, the Americans and Europeans produced storm clouds over… brace for it… a golf hat. Or the lack of a golf hat. Let us explain.

American player Patrick Cantlay chose to go hatless, eschewing the U.S. team wardrobe that everyone else agreed to wear. Needless to say the hat had patriotic themes and Cantlay’s decision was seen to be controversial. It was not like quarterback Colin Kaepernick kneeling for the national anthem, but to those loyal to Old Glory its seemed disrespectful.

It wasn’t helped when media reported that Cantlay had declined the chapeau because, as opposed to teammate, LIV member Brooks Koepka, he wasn’t receiving a bonus for wearing the hat. And that, as a result, the embattled U.S. team was split over the controversy. (After first saying that he couldn’t find a hat that fit, Cantlay later changed his story to say that the bonus/ dissension story was false.)

That was all the partisan European fans needed to hear. They began mocking Cantlay by doffing their hats and jeering him as Team USA stumbled on Friday and Saturday. Rather than fold, however, Cantlay went on a blazing run in Saturday’s final match against Rory McIlroy and Matthew Fitzpatrick. Posting three straight birdies, his last forced the emotional Irishman into a difficult putt on 18 to get a tie.

After Cantlay’s dramatic putt dropped, his caddie Joe LaCava (formerly Tiger Woods’ caddie) mocked the crowd by doffing his hat in McIlroy’s vision. As he did he came close to McIlroy who was preparing for his ultimately unsuccessful putt. The two exchanged words. They were not, “Have a good day.” European team member Shayne Lowry then yelled at LaCava who returned fire.

When the sniping ended, the bare-headed Cantlay sunk a dramatic putt to give America hope on Sunday. But that didn’t end the unpleasantness. In the parking lot, McIlroy got into it with Justin Thomas’ caddy Jim “Bones” McKay. Lowry had to physically shove his fellow Irishman into a car to end the confrontation.

Golf’s chattering classes went mad with excitement. What would happen on Sunday as Europe attempted to win the four points that would return them the Cup? Would America be inspired? Was Europe distracted by McIlroy’s intemperate blasts?

Sunday, LaCava told media he’d met with McIlroy that morning to smooth things over. No hard feelings. In the end, etc. The most visible sign of Saturday’s ruckus was Cantlay buddies Justin Thomas, Colin Morikawa and Xander Schauffele also going hatless in solidarity. It didn’t help as Europe— led by McIlroy spanking Sam Burns 3&1—  won the Cup 16.5-11.5. And McIlroy called LaCava a liar about talking to him.

But there was no mistaking the witches’ brew cooked up on the weekend in Italy. The well-rested Americans were handed their hats (badda-bing) early by a Euro squad seeking revenge for their loss at Whistling Straits in 2021. The coach’s selections on the U.S. side— Thomas, Koepka, Burns and Rickie Fowler— stunk out the joint. Calling them coach’s selections exaggerates. Zach Johnson was told by his core players whom to invite.

The Euro coach’s selections might not have been brilliant, but they didn’t hinder the win. Nor were the Euros hurt by the partisan crowd that hooted, chanted and sang its dislike for the Yanks. But that is the Ryder Cup, and when the sides meet again at NYC’s Bethpage Black in 2025 the rabble will reciprocate.

Some players called for calm. Rahm asked everyone to cool down after his half on Sunday. Cantlay smiled benignly through all the hullabaloo, saying the chaos is what makes the Ryder Cup great. But they were drowned out by the international press that pronounced critically on American vanity and the Euros swagger.

The Ryder Cup is traditionally— if not actually— considered the end of the golf season, the culmination of the majors and the FedEx Cup season. So it seemed only appropriate that the first full year of the Saudi-backed LIV Golf end with a sour taste for many. McIlroy, for one, has had a miserable time mixing the old (he won 2 times and earned $13,921,008 but with no majors) and the new (as defiant spokesman for the PGA Tour versus LIV he was hung out to dry by the Tour and many fellow players who allowed him to fight their fight). His outburst Saturday/ Sunday showed the strain he’s carried.

As the only LIV member playing at Marco Simone Koepka did little to put a happy face on his chosen Tour. Dour, sullen and churlish, he refused the ceremonial doffing of his hat when he’d schooled young Lucas Aberg 3&2. Not that the European and PGA Tour officials connected to the Ryder Cup extended a hand or made pleasant noises about the proposed merger with LIV.

Indeed, the ghosts of LIV members haunted the event. Ryder Cup legends Ian Poulter, Lee Westwood, Henrik Stenson, Graham McDowell, Paul Casey, Dustin Johnson and Phil Mickelson were not only excluded from playing but told there was no place in the coaching room of their teams. It all felt somewhat hollow at times.

Thanks goodness #HatGate resurrected a bit of the old-fashioned bile that makes Ryder Cups so anticipated. For all the polite chumminess of today’s PGA Tour, a silly pissing match is a nice diversion. After all, as Conn Smythe once said after a brawl-filled hockey game, “Much more of this and we will have to print extra tickets for the next game.”

Sign up today for Not The Public Broadcaster newsletters. Hot takes/ cool slants on sports and current affairs. Have the latest columns delivered to your mail box. Tell your friends to join, too. Always provocative, always independent.

Bruce Dowbiggin @dowbboy is the editor of Not The Public Broadcaster  A two-time winner of the Gemini Award as Canada’s top television sports broadcaster, he’s a regular contributor to Sirius XM Canada Talks Ch. 167. Inexact Science: The Six Most Compelling Draft Years In NHL History, his new book with his son Evan, was voted the seventh-best professional hockey book of all time by . His 2004 book Money Players was voted sixth best on the same list, and is available via


Continue Reading

Brownstone Institute

The White House’s ‘Misinformation’ Pressure Campaign Was Unconstitutional

Published on

From the Brownstone Institute


I am one of five private plaintiffs in the landmark free speech case Missouri v. Biden. Earlier this month, the Fifth Circuit Court found that the government “engaged in a years-long pressure campaign designed to ensure that the censorship [on social media] aligned with the government’s preferred viewpoints” and that “the platforms, in capitulation to state-sponsored pressure, changed their moderation policies.” This resulted in the censoring of constitutionally protected speech of hundreds of thousands of Americans, tens of millions of times. Based on this finding, the Fifth Circuit in part upheld an injunction on certain public officials put in place by a district court.

Even when the government appealed the injunction to the Fifth Circuit, its lawyers hardly disputed  a single factual finding  from the court’s ruling. A unanimous three-judge panel upheld the core findings that “several officials—namely the White House, the Surgeon General, the CDC, and the FBI—likely coerced or significantly encouraged social-media platforms to moderate content, rendering those decisions state actions. In doing so, the officials likely violated the First Amendment.” The government again appealed the injunction to the Supreme Court, where we expect a ruling this week.

The government’s claim that the injunction limits public officials’ own speech is absurd misdirection. The government can say whatever it wants publicly; it just cannot stop other Americans from saying something else. Free speech matters not to ensure that every pariah can say whatever odious thing he or she chooses. Rather, free speech prevents the government from identifying every critic as a pariah whose speech must be shut down.

We are all harmed when our rulers silence criticism. Our government’s self-inflicted deafness prevented officials and their constituents from hearing viewpoints that should have had a meaningful impact on our policy decisions. Instead, government censorship resulted time and again in the silencing of scientifically informed criticisms of, for example, harmful COVID policies. This allowed misguided and divisive policies to persist far too long.

The scope of the current government censorship regime is historically unprecedented. “The present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history,” the district court judge explained in his ruling. He went on, “The evidence produced thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario… The United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth’.” The Fifth Circuit panel concurred: “The Supreme Court has rarely been faced with a coordinated campaign of this magnitude orchestrated by federal officials that jeopardized a fundamental aspect of American life.”

The government’s only attempted defense is that it was merely offering help to the platforms without jawboning them—”just your friendly neighborhood government agency.” But the law is clear that even “significant encouragement” to censor protected speech—not just overt threats or coercion—is unconstitutional. We discovered that social media companies frequently tried to push back against government demands, before finally caving to relentless pressure and threats. The evidence we presented from 20,000 pages of communications between government and social media demonstrated both significant encouragement and coercion—as when Rob Flaherty, White House director of digital strategy, berated executives at Facebook and Google, dropping F-bombs, launching tirades, and browbeating the companies into submission—until they removed even a parody account satirizing President Joe Biden.

But the more insidious and powerful censorship happens when government pressures companies to change their terms of service and modify their algorithms to control what information goes viral and what information disappears down the memory hole. With sophisticated deboosting, shadowbanning, search results prioritization, and so forth, citizens do not even realize they are being silenced, and viewers remain unaware that their feeds are carefully curated by the government. Novelist Walter Kirn compared this to mixing a record: turn the volume up on this idea (more cowbell) and turn the volume down on that idea (less snare drum). The goal is complete top-down information control online.

We were dismayed to discover the number of government agencies now engaged in censorship (at least a dozen) and the range of issues they targeted: the State Department censored criticism of our withdrawal from Afghanistan and the Ukraine War, the Treasury Department censored criticism of our monetary policy, the FBI (surprise!) ran point on several censorship ops, and even the Census Bureau got in on the game. Other targeted topics ranged from abortion and gender to election integrity and COVID policy.

Much of the state censorship grunt work is outsourced to a tightly integrated network of quasi-private (i.e., government funded) NGOs, universities, and government cutouts employing thousands of people working round the clock to flag posts for takedown. But constitutional jurisprudence is clear: the government cannot outsource to private entities actions that would be illegal for the government itself to do. If a government agent hires a hit man, he is not off the hook simply because he did not personally pull the trigger.

So-called “misinformation research” at places like the Stanford Internet Observatory is a slippery euphemism for censorship—not only because Facebook executives admitted to censoring “often true” but inconvenient information under government pressure, but because these entities function as laundering operations for government censorship.

Recent attempts to rebrand the work of the censorship-industrial complex with more anodyne euphemisms—”information integrity” or “civic participation online”—don’t change the fact that this is not disinterested academic research, but cooperation in state-sponsored suppression of constitutionally protected speech, always in favor of the government’s preferred narratives.

CISA, the government’s censorship switchboard and clearinghouse agency housed within the Department of Homeland Securitydescribed its work as protecting our “cognitive infrastructure”—i.e., the thoughts inside your head—from bad ideas, such as the ones advanced in this article. (Not kidding: YouTube recently censored a video of our lawyers giving a talk on our censorship case.) These ideas aren’t throttled by government censors because they are untrue, but because they are unwelcome. There’s a more accurate term for the government’s takeover of our “cognitive infrastructure:” mind control. I don’t know a single American of any political persuasion who wants to be subjected to that.

Republished from Newsweek


  • Aaron Kheriaty

    Aaron Kheriaty, Senior Brownstone Scholar and 2023 Brownstone Fellow, is a psychiatrist working with the Unity Project. He is a former Professor of Psychiatry at the University of California at Irvine School of Medicine, where he was the director of Medical Ethics.

Continue Reading