Connect with us

Business

Auditor General: $3.5 Billion in CEBA Loans Went to Ineligible Businesses, Recovery Efforts Lacking.

Published

15 minute read

The Opposition with Dan Knight

A $3.5 Billion Disaster Exposes Government Negligence, Corporate Greed, and a Total Lack of Accountability

Welcome to the latest edition of “What the Government Doesn’t Want You to Know.” Tonight, we’re talking about Canada’s Canada Emergency Business Account (CEBA) program—a pandemic-era scheme that was supposed to help struggling businesses. Instead, it’s a case study in waste, corruption, and outright negligence.

Here’s what we learned during a bombshell hearing of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (PACP) Wednesday: $3.5 billion in taxpayer money was handed out to ineligible businesses, 92% of the contracts went to one company, Accenture, without any competitive bidding, and there’s virtually no accountability for any of it.

Let’s break it down.


$3.5 Billion Vanishes, and No One Cares

Here’s what we learned from the Auditor General: The Canada Emergency Business Account program—$49 billion handed out to almost a million small businesses during the pandemic—was a mixed bag. On the one hand, they moved fast. Great. But on the other hand, it was a fiscal train wreck in terms of accountability. And let’s be clear: “accountability” is supposed to be their job.

Now, here’s the kicker. We find out that $3.5 billion—yes, billion with a “B”—went to businesses that didn’t even qualify. That’s our money, taxpayer money, handed over to ineligible recipients. What’s their excuse? Well, they were in a rush, they say. Of course, they were. Crises always become the justification for sloppy governance and waste.

Then there’s Export Development Canada—the folks running this show. They outsourced 92% of their contracts for this program to one company, Accenture. No competitive bidding, no oversight, just one big fat sweetheart deal. And get this: Accenture essentially got to write its own terms. They gave themselves the keys to the vault. They even built systems that made EDC dependent on them until 2028. That’s right—they locked themselves in for years, turning a pandemic emergency into a lucrative, long-term cash cow.

What about the Department of Finance and Global Affairs Canada? Were they stepping in, asking tough questions, setting clear limits? Nope. They were nowhere to be found. Total accountability vacuum. And by the way, administrative costs for this program? Over $850 million. Think about that. You can’t make this stuff up.

And when the Auditor General says, “Hey, maybe you should track down that $3.5 billion and recover it,” EDC just shrugs. They “partially agree.” Partially? Imagine if you told the CRA you “partially agree” with paying your taxes. See how that goes.

Here’s the reality: This is what happens when a government prioritizes speed over basic responsibility. They let the fox guard the henhouse, and now they want us to move on and forget about it. But we shouldn’t. This isn’t just bad management—it’s a betrayal of public trust. It’s our money, and they treated it like Monopoly cash.

So, who’s going to be held accountable? Who’s going to pay the price for this colossal mess? The answer, as usual, is probably no one.

Accenture’s Sweetheart Deal

Here’s the part that should really make your blood boil: $342 million worth of CEBA contracts went to consulting giant Accenture. No competitive bidding. No oversight. Nothing. Just a blank check from EDC with your money.

And it gets worse. Accenture didn’t just get the money—they subcontracted work to themselves. That’s right, they paid themselves with your money. And here’s the kicker: EDC is locked into contracts with Accenture until 2028. So, for the next four years, taxpayers will keep paying this consulting giant, all because EDC couldn’t be bothered to shop around or demand accountability.

Lavery’s excuse? “We needed speed and expertise during the pandemic.” Speed doesn’t justify corruption. It doesn’t justify giving one private company complete control over a multi-billion-dollar program. This isn’t just incompetence; it’s a rigged system designed to enrich consultants at the expense of taxpayers.


$853 Million in Administrative Costs

Let’s talk about efficiency—or the lack thereof. The CEBA program cost $853 million to administer. That’s $300 per loan, according to EDC. Lavery called that “reasonable.” Reasonable? For what? Businesses reported that the call center EDC spent $27 million on barely worked. Think about that: $27 million for a call center where you can’t even get someone to pick up the phone.

Conservative MP Brad Vis summed it up perfectly: “For $27 million, you’d expect a call center that actually answers calls.” But instead, Canadians got more of the same—an expensive, inefficient system that’s great for consultants and terrible for everyone else.


Conservatives Demand Accountability for CEBA Mismanagement: ‘A Blank Check for Consultants’

The Conservatives didn’t hold back in yesterday’s hearing, demanding accountability for what they called a blatant misuse of taxpayer dollars. Conservative MP Brad Vis led the charge, grilling EDC President Mairead Lavery on the $3.5 billion in loans that went to ineligible businesses. He didn’t mince words, calling out the government’s failure to put basic safeguards in place. “How did this happen, and what’s being done to recover this money?” Vis asked repeatedly, only to be met with vague assurances that EDC was “working with Finance Canada” on the issue. Translation: Nothing is actually happening.

MP Kelly McCauley took aim at the $342 million handed to Accenture without a single competitive bid. “How can you justify giving 92% of CEBA contracts to one company without opening it up to competition?” he asked, pointing out that Accenture even subcontracted work to itself, effectively turning the program into a taxpayer-funded cash cow for consultants. McCauley wasn’t buying Lavery’s excuses about pandemic urgency, pointing out that this kind of procurement failure wasn’t just a one-time mistake—it was a systemic problem.

John Nater, another Conservative MP, zeroed in on the long-term fallout. He expressed outrage that EDC is locked into a contract with Accenture until 2028, ensuring that taxpayers will continue funding this flawed system for years to come. Nater demanded to know why no one at EDC or in government thought it necessary to implement oversight mechanisms once the initial rollout phase had passed. “This isn’t just about speed. It’s about accountability. Where was the oversight? Where was the plan to safeguard public money?” Nater asked.

The Conservatives’ message was clear: this wasn’t just a case of pandemic-related haste—it was a failure of leadership, oversight, and governance. They demanded consequences for those responsible and reforms to prevent similar disasters in the future. As McCauley aptly put it, “This wasn’t an emergency response. It was a blank check for consultants, and taxpayers are the ones paying the price.”


Liberals Spin CEBA Disaster as a Success: ‘Sweeping It Under the Rug

The Liberal response to this mess was as predictable as it was infuriating: deny, deflect, and downplay. Instead of addressing the core issues—like the $3.5 billion in loans to ineligible businesses or the sweetheart contracts handed to Accenture—Liberal MPs spent their time patting themselves on the back for the program’s “success” and running interference for Export Development Canada (EDC).

Take Francis Drouin, for example. He spent his time emphasizing how quickly the CEBA program got money into the hands of struggling businesses. Sure, the program distributed $49.1 billion, but at what cost? When confronted with the Auditor General’s findings about fraud, waste, and mismanagement, Drouin brushed past the hard questions and pivoted back to the pandemic. It was a textbook move: ignore the billions lost and focus on how hard the government worked. Typical.

Then there was Valerie Bradford, who followed the same script. Instead of demanding answers about why 92% of contracts went to one consulting firm without competitive bidding, she lobbed softball questions that gave EDC President Mairead Lavery the chance to repeat her excuses about “urgency” and “unprecedented circumstances.” Bradford didn’t challenge the inflated administrative costs, the useless $27 million call center, or the lack of oversight. Instead, she chose to frame the discussion as if this was all just the price of doing business in a crisis.

This wasn’t accountability. This was damage control. The Liberals weren’t there to ask hard questions—they were there to protect their narrative. To them, it doesn’t matter that taxpayers got fleeced. It doesn’t matter that consultants got rich while businesses were left waiting for answers. All that matters is spinning this disaster into a success story, no matter how far from the truth that is.

What’s most galling is the arrogance. The Liberals seem to think Canadians should be grateful for a program that wasted billions, enriched corporations, and locked taxpayers into a disastrous contract until 2028. It’s as if they expect a thank-you card for their incompetence.

Here’s the reality: the Liberal response wasn’t about addressing the scandal. It was about sweeping it under the rug. And unless Canadians demand better, this is the kind of governance they’ll keep getting: one where failure is rebranded as success, and no one ever takes responsibility for the consequences.


Final Thoughts

So, what did we learn from this so-called committee meeting? We learned that billions of taxpayer dollars can be wasted, handed out to ineligible businesses, and funneled into the pockets of consultants without anyone in government blinking an eye. We learned that accountability is a foreign concept in Ottawa, where “working on it” is the go-to excuse for incompetence and outright negligence.

Export Development Canada failed. The Department of Finance failed. The Liberals in charge failed. But here’s the kicker—no one will pay for it. Not the bureaucrats who bungled the program, not the consultants who profited from it, and certainly not the politicians who allowed this circus to happen.

Instead, we got a performance. A parade of excuses, vague promises, and shameless spin. The Conservatives tried to hold the government’s feet to the fire, but the Liberals spent their time running cover for the mess they created. And the Bloc and NDP, while occasionally landing a punch, ultimately let the bureaucrats wiggle off the hook. This wasn’t accountability; it was theater.

The CEBA program wasn’t just a failure—it was a lesson in how the system really works. When there’s no oversight, no consequences, and no urgency to fix anything, corruption and incompetence become the norm. Consultants get rich, bureaucrats get a pass, and taxpayers get the bill.

And the people running this committee? They’re part of the problem. They don’t want to fix the system because the system works perfectly for them. It rewards their friends, protects their power, and keeps them unaccountable. This wasn’t a hearing; it was a farce. And unless Canadians demand real change, this won’t be the last time their government lets them down.

So, ask yourself this: How much more are you willing to let them get away with? Because as long as you stay quiet, they’ll keep doing exactly what they did here—wasting your money, spinning their failures, and walking away without a scratch.

Please consider subscribing 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

Vice President Vance expects framework of TikTok deal by April 5

Published on

MXM logo MxM News

Quick Hit:

Vice President JD Vance expects a framework agreement to resolve TikTok’s ownership by April 5, as the Biden-era law requiring its Chinese owner, ByteDance, to sell the app or face a ban looms. President Donald Trump had previously delayed enforcement of the law, allowing more time for negotiations. The White House is in discussions with multiple potential buyers to establish an American-owned version of the social media platform.

Key Details:

  • Vice President Vance stated that a high-level agreement will likely be reached that meets national security concerns while creating a U.S.-based TikTok enterprise.

  • President Trump signed an executive order in January, delaying the enforcement of a law requiring ByteDance to sell TikTok or face a ban.

  • The White House is engaged with four interested groups in potential acquisition talks.

Diving Deeper:

The fate of TikTok in the U.S. has been a subject of intense debate due to concerns over data security and its ties to the Chinese Communist Party through ByteDance. The law, originally passed under the Biden administration, sought to force the sale of the app due to fears that American user data could be accessed by the Chinese government. However, after taking office, President Trump extended the enforcement deadline by 75 days, giving room for negotiations.

Vice President Vance, speaking to NBC News aboard Air Force Two, expressed confidence that an agreement will be reached by April 5, though some details may still need to be finalized afterward. He and national security adviser Michael Waltz have been leading efforts to facilitate a sale that would address national security concerns while preserving TikTok’s massive American user base.

President Trump revealed last weekend that his administration is in talks with four different groups interested in acquiring the app. While the specifics of these negotiations remain undisclosed, the administration has made it clear that TikTok must operate as a distinct American entity to remain in the U.S. market.

As the deadline approaches, ByteDance has not publicly commented on the ongoing discussions. However, with bipartisan concerns over the influence of the Chinese Communist Party on U.S. technology platforms, the expectation is that any deal will include significant safeguards to prevent foreign interference in the app’s operations.

The coming weeks will determine whether a sale materializes or if further action will be needed to enforce the law. Either way, the Trump administration has signaled its commitment to ensuring that TikTok is no longer under the control of a hostile foreign adversary.

Continue Reading

Business

Brookfield’s Deep Ties to Chinese Land, Loans, and Green Deals—And a Real Estate Tycoon With CCP Links—Raise Questions as Carney Takes Over from Trudeau

Published on

From The Bureau

Brookfield Bet Billions on Shanghai Land as China’s Market Peaked and Secured $276 Million Bank of China Refinancing Under Mark Carney as Market Crashed

A review of corporate documents reveals that Brookfield—the influential $900 billion Canadian investment fund from which Liberal Prime Minister-to-be Mark Carney stepped away from in order to replace Justin Trudeau as Canada’s leader—maintains over $3 billion in politically sensitive investments with Chinese state-linked real estate and energy companies, along with a substantial offshore banking presence. One of its major real estate ventures, a $750 million entry into high-end Shanghai commercial property in 2013, involved a Hong Kong tycoon affiliated with the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC)—which the CIA labels a central “united front” entity of Beijing.

The investment occurred while China’s real estate bubble was peaking. Last year, as China’s market crashed, and vacancies soared in Shanghai, Brookfield under Carney secured hundreds of millions of dollars in loans from the Bank of China to refinance its Shanghai commercial land holdings. According to The Bureau’s  research, this emergency loan came a decade after Carney, serving as Governor of the Bank of England, aided Beijing by facilitating the Bank of China’s expansion of its global financial footprint. In his 2013 speech, UK at the Heart of Renewed Globalisation, Carney announced that “The Bank of England [has] signed an agreement with the People’s Bank of China … Helping the internationalisation of the Renminbi is a global good.”

While Brookfield had already amassed well over three billion dollars in estimated investments and managed assets in China before Carney took the helm in 2020, research indicates that he played a role in expanding the firm’s footprint there. This included refinancing its 2019 acquisition of Shanghai commercial real estate—initially valued at approximately CAD $2 billion at the peak of China’s real estate bubble—though its actual worth was likely significantly lower when Brookfield secured nearly $300 million at four percent interest from the Bank of China last year.

Given that his history of deep investment in China—if not his holdings, reportedly now placed in a blind trust—could potentially color Carney’s plans for Canada, these developments are especially notable as a trade war between the United States and Beijing escalates.

Carney and his cabinet members will be sworn in at 11 a.m. this morning at Rideau Hall, the Governor General’s official residence. The timing of Carney’s appointment as prime minister adds urgency to ongoing questions about potential conflicts of interest, with matters further complicated by reports that his first international meeting will be with European leaders next week—who are themselves grappling with sweeping tariffs imposed by the Trump Administration.

Brookfield’s substantial investments in China—directly or indirectly involving state-linked entities—include hundreds of millions in renewable energy assets acquired through TerraForm Global in 2017, a $750 million real estate stake in China Xintiandi since 2013, a 2019 Shanghai land purchase valued at approximately $2 billion, a $100 million joint venture with GLP for solar projects launched in 2018, and reported plans to raise hundreds of millions more in both real estate and China green sector investments.

In 2013, the year Xi Jinping became president, Brookfield made its first major foray into China’s real estate sector, investing up to $750 million for a 22% stake in China Xintiandi, a subsidiary of Hong Kong-listed developer Shui On Land. “The cornerstone investment in China Xintiandi gives Brookfield access to high-quality assets in Shanghai while creating opportunities for future growth through asset acquisitions and strategic partnerships,” Bill Powell, Brookfield’s Australasian chief executive, said in a press release. “China is a key market in Brookfield’s long-term growth strategy, and partnering with Shui On Land to invest in China Xintiandi is an ideal entry point for us.”

Although Shui On Land is not state-owned, it operates within China’s tightly regulated urban redevelopment sector. One of Brookfield’s primary real estate partners in the region is Vincent Lo, Shui On Land’s principal, who previously served as a member of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC)—an advisory body that ostensibly includes diverse political parties and organizations but ultimately operates under Chinese Communist Party leadership.

Its members, especially high-profile business leaders, often support policy objectives aligned with the central government’s agenda. Lo’s decades of membership in the CPPCC highlights his proximity to Beijing and adds important context to any business dealings he undertakes—such as those with Brookfield.

For example, in a 2024 interview with China Daily, Lo made his position on Chinese Communist rule in Hong Kong clear: “I think a lot of people don’t really understand what ‘one country, two systems’ is, until after a lot of disruptive demonstrations in Hong Kong that really made us realize we are under one country,” he told the Communist Party–controlled news outlet.

Further illuminating sensitive questions that geopolitical analysts might consider regarding Brookfield’s partnership with such investors, the China Daily interviewer asked:

“Vincent, since you mentioned that our motherland has improved and matured, understanding what the world is all about—does that diminish Hong Kong’s role in any way?”

No, [Hong Kong is] more so [important] because right now, for example, the US and its close allies are all trying to contain China’s growth,” Lo answered. “And so Hong Kong as a special administrative region, we have a special sort of angle to handle this situation. Because I don’t believe multinational corporations can ignore the China market.”

According to China Daily, Vincent Lo served as a director of Hang Seng Bank in 2010 alongside Cheng Yu-tung, a prominent Hong Kong tycoon and member of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference. Documents show Cheng was involved in Macau casino holdings through a consortium of Hong Kong investors, including Stanley Ho—an association that drew scrutiny from U.S. and Canadian law enforcement and intelligence. Authorities were particularly concerned about Cheng’s dealings with individuals suspected by New Jersey gaming regulators of engaging in illicit activities within Macau’s private VIP gaming rooms. [Cheng Yu-tung also had reported dealings with Donald Trump, before Trump ran for office in the United States.]

During his tenure as Governor of the Bank of England from 2013 to 2020, Carney deepened financial ties between the UK and China, most notably with his ‘money swap deal’ with China’s central bank, letting each country borrow the other’s cash—up to £21 billion. Carney said it could lead to a yuan-trading hub in London. This pact made it easier for businesses to use China’s money worldwide, boosting Beijing’s goal to rival the U.S. dollar.

In March 2024, as Brookfield’s chair, Mark Carney was among a select group of Western executives who met with President Xi Jinping in Beijing—an event The Telegram described as part of a charm offensive” amid Beijing’s efforts to stabilize its economy.

Then, 11 years after strengthening ties between London and Beijing through the Bank of China agreement, Carney returned to Beijing in October 2024—just a month after joining Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s economic task force. During this visit, he held meetings with senior Chinese officials, including a private session with Beijing Mayor Yin Yong.

The following month, as reported by Bloomberg on November 5, 2024, Brookfield secured a $276 million loan from the Bank of China—underscoring Carney and the firm’s deep financial connections to the People’s Republic.

According to Bloomberg’s anonymous sources, the Canadian asset manager faced a looming offshore senior loan of approximately $700 million due by year-end. The loan was originally used to finance Brookfield’s 2019 acquisition of a Shanghai office tower complex from Greenland Hong Kong Holdings Ltd.—a CAD 2-billion transaction that ranked among the largest commercial property purchases by a foreign firm in China. Bloomberg reported that the Bank of China loan carried an annual interest rate of around 4%.

“Talks are unfolding against the backdrop of a severe real estate slump in China, where rising supply and a slowing economy have pushed office vacancy in some prime Shanghai districts to 21.5 percent, the highest level in two decades,” Bloomberg noted.

That a state-owned bank provided this financing amid China’s plunging real estate market suggests the Bank of China extended a critical financial lifeline to Brookfield during a period of acute economic stress. While not classified as an investment, the loan underscores Brookfield’s politically sensitive ties to Beijing’s main bank—helping to sustain its multibillion-dollar real estate footprint in China under Carney’s leadership.

In 2017, Brookfield invested $750 million to acquire TerraForm Global, a renewable power company originally spun out of SunEdison, an American solar power company that filed for bankruptcy in 2016. TerraForm’s portfolio included 952 megawatts of solar and wind assets in emerging markets. “This transaction expands our presence in Brazil and provides a platform for further growth in India and China’s attractive, high-growth renewables markets,” the company said.

Notably, TerraForm’s indirect ties to JIC Capital—a Chinese state-owned entity that invested in SunEdison—suggest that these power purchase agreements may have involved government-backed contracts. This acquisition positioned Brookfield as a direct investor in China’s expanding clean energy market, a sector that the Chinese government has actively encouraged for foreign partnerships. It also aligns with Carney’s urgent vision—promoted through multilateral entities such as the World Economic Forum—to mobilize cross-border investment in pursuit of climate change mitigation.

Brookfield has also transacted directly with a Chinese state-owned enterprise. In 2017, Brookfield Infrastructure Partners sold its 28% stake in Transelec—Chile’s largest electric transmission company—to China Southern Power Grid for approximately $1.3 billion. The Transelec sale is one of the largest Chinese acquisitions in Chile’s energy sector and exemplifies Brookfield’s lucrative conduit role in high-level infrastructure transactions with Chinese state-owned entities.

Brookfield’s presence in China extends beyond asset sales. In 2018, the company formed a 50:50 joint venture with Global Logistic Properties (GLP), a leading Asia-based logistics firm, to install 300 megawatts of distributed solar projects across China, with a pipeline that could eventually expand to 1 gigawatt. Although GLP is not a Chinese state entity, it is partially owned by Vanke Group, whose largest shareholder is Shenzhen Metro—a well-known state-owned enterprise.

In his capacity at Brookfield, Carney’s interactions with Chinese leadership became even more direct. On October 20, 2024, he traveled to Beijing to attend the Financial Street Forum, an annual conference organized by the Chinese government to advance financial policy coordination with foreign investors. During this visit, Carney held a private meeting with Beijing’s Mayor Yin Yong at the city’s Financial Regulatory Bureau headquarters.

In language reminiscent of Chinese Communist Party framing, according to a Chinese government website statement, Beijing’s mayor “encouraged Brookfield Asset Management and BlackRock to seize opportunities, tap into their strengths, and increase their investment and business presence in Beijing. He invited both companies to further deepen mutually beneficial cooperation, and share the dividends of Beijing’s high-quality development and high-standard opening-up.” Meanwhile, “Carney highlighted Brookfield Asset Management’s keen interest in seizing development opportunities in China, further expanding its business in Beijing, and deepening cooperation with relevant partners in areas such as green finance, fund management, and infrastructure investment,” the Chinese statement said.

Beyond his corporate dealings, Carney has also interacted with Chinese financial institutions at global economic forums, appearing alongside figures such as Jin Liqun, President of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). The AIIB is a China-led institution that promotes large-scale infrastructure investments backed by Chinese capital. These ties suggest that Carney has built close relationships with key figures in China’s financial and political circles—connections that could shape his economic policies as he assumes leadership of Canada’s government today.

Carney resigned from Brookfield in January 2025 to focus on his leadership bid for Canada’s Liberal Party and secured a stunning victory this week in what CBC described as “largely a referendum on who is best to take on the U.S. president.”

“Carney, who does not hold a seat in the House of Commons and has never been elected, secured more than 85 percent of the points … [and] dominated in all 343 ridings,” CBC reported, noting that while he was widely seen as the front-runner, “even members of his camp were surprised by the resounding results Sunday evening.”

Carney’s team has stated that he placed all his assets in a blind trust to prevent conflicts of interest. However, questions remain about whether this step fully distances him from Brookfield. His opponent, Pierre Poilievre, has called for greater transparency regarding Brookfield’s financial dealings, while Poilievre’s party argues that Canadian media has not sufficiently scrutinized Carney’s background.

Meanwhile, Centre for International Corporate Tax Accountability and Research (CICTAR) has reported that Brookfield’s offshore structuring enabled it to avoid an estimated $6.5 billion in taxes in 2021 alone. “While this may be legal, it has large negative impacts on public funding for essential services,” the report stated. Two years ago, with Carney at the helm, Brookfield faced criticism for using offshore tax havens and various loopholes on its properties in London and its Manhattan West holdings in New York. According to CICTAR, in the case of Brookfield’s Canary Wharf properties, the management firm’s £2.6 billion co-ownership deal in 2015—alongside the Qatar Investment Authority—was structured through a labyrinth of holding companies and subsidiaries, including entities in known tax havens like Jersey and Bermuda

The Paradise Papers (a 2017 leak of offshore records) further revealed numerous Brookfield-linked entities registered through the Appleby law firm. For example, Brookfield Infrastructure Partners Limited and Brookfield Property Partners Limited were incorporated in Bermuda, according to the Paradise Papers data. Records show Brookfield had many Bermuda-based vehicles dating back to the mid-2000s—such as Brookfield Asset Management Holdings Ltd. (Bermuda, incorporated 2006)—and various Brookfield Infrastructure and Property subsidiaries formed between 2007 and 2013. Brookfield Asset Management was also listed as an officer of a Cayman Islands company (Brookfield Brazil Ltd., incorporated in 1995) in the Offshore Leaks database.

As Carney takes office today, scrutiny of his financial dealings and Brookfield’s deep ties to China and offshore banking is likely to intensify. With Canada’s economic future becoming ever more entangled in global trade conflicts, Carney’s business background offers both a wealth of expertise and a complex network of financial entanglements—factors that could potentially produce lasting consequences for Canadian citizens, whether they are fully aware or not.

Earlier this week, The Global Times, widely regarded as a vocal outlet for the Chinese Communist Party, signaled Beijing’s approval of Carney’s victory—at least for now.

When asked about Mark Carney’s leadership win in Canada’s ruling Liberal Party and his expected rise to prime minister, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said Monday that China has taken note of the reports and extends its congratulations to Mr. Carney,” the outlet reported.

Mao added, “We hope Canada maintains an objective and rational understanding of China and adopts a pragmatic approach, working with China to improve and develop bilateral relations.”

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

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

Continue Reading

Trending

X