National
Trudeau appoints a member of the Trudeau Foundation to investigate donations to the Trudeau Foundation – PPC leader Maxime Bernier
While opposition parties form positions on the Prime Minister’s appointment of former Governor General David Johnston as his Special Rapporteur, PPC Leader Maxime Bernier is expressing extreme outrage.
In this newsletter Bernier is using to both spread the news, and to raise money, Bernier points out just how closely tied the Trudeau family is to the former Governor General.
Another day, another example of Liberal corruption in Trudeau’s government.
To address increasing concerns around Chinese interference in our elections, Justin Trudeau said earlier this week that he would appoint a “special rapporteur”—whatever that means—to conduct an investigation.
Yesterday he announced he would be appointing former Governor General, David Johnston, to this position.
Trudeau is describing Johnston as a “Harper appointee” to try and make it seem like an impartial appointment when in reality it is anything but.
Johnston is a standing member of the Trudeau Foundation, the charity that accepted a $200,000 donation from the Chinese Communist Party laundered through a Chinese Canadian businessman.
Is this for real? Trudeau appoints a member of the Trudeau Foundation to investigate interference which involved donations to the Trudeau Foundation?!
It’s a clear conflict of interest!
To make things even more suspect, on multiple occasions, Trudeau has lovingly described Johnston as a “family friend,” having grown up alongside Johnston’s children.
Don’t believe me? Listen to Trudeau describe their relationship!
More recently, Johnston has been the Commissioner of the Leaders’ Debates Commission since it was established in 2018.
An organization whose mandate is to interfere with our elections!
As Commissioner, Johnston was responsible for trying to exclude dissident media organizations, like Rebel Media and True North, from covering the debates and holding the party leaders to account.
He was responsible for the absurd debate formats designed to protect the establishment narrative.
He was also responsible for wrongly excluding me from the debate stage during the 2021 election!
This was at the height of the covid craziness, when having me on national television would have completely destroyed the mainstream narrative.
This is the man who’s supposed to investigate interference in our election?
It’s absurd, but I can’t say I’m surprised. Canada under Trudeau has quickly become a corrupt banana republic.
We saw the exact same playbook with the Freedom Convoy Inquiry.
- Trudeau appoints a compromised individual to oversee things.
- They delay and push things back to allow public pressure to fall.
- Trudeau’s bought and paid for media runs cover for the establishment narrative.
- The commissioner/special rapporteur finds nothing is wrong and the conflict is swept under the rug.
This is absolutely unacceptable behaviour on Trudeau’s part! He continues to make a mockery of our democratic institutions.
The level of corruption and incompetence we’ve seen from this government is unprecedented.
Duane, we need to clean the house. We need to vote out every one of these corrupt, career politicians and fill the House of Commons with honest PPC MPs who will put the interests of Canadians first.
Help me accomplish this mission with a $10 donation today!
Thank you so much for your support,
-Max
P.S.: If you have trouble finding where you can donate, you can just click this link! https://www.
From the Fraser Institute
By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari
As noted by the Trudeau government, plastic substitutes contribute to lower air quality and “typically have higher climate change impacts” due to higher GHG emissions.
Recently at the White House, President Donald Trump signed an executive order reversing the Biden administration’s plan to phase out plastic straws. The Trudeau government, however, continues with its plan to ban single-use plastics, even though this prohibition will have minimal impact worldwide, will actually increase waste in Canada, and force a transition to alternatives that impose greater environmental harm. Rather than doubling down on a flawed policy, the next federal government should reverse Trudeau’s plastic ban.
In 2021, the Trudeau government classified plastic items as “toxic,” paving the way for the ban on the manufacturing, importing and selling of checkout bags, cutlery, stir sticks and straws—all single-use plastics. In 2023, the Federal Court deemed the designation “unreasonable and unconstitutional”—but the Trudeau government defended the measure and is appealing, with a ruling expected this year.
According to the latest available data, Canada’s contributes 0.04 per cent to global plastic waste. The United States contributes 0.43 per cent—more than 10 times Canada’s share. But neither country is a major contributor to global plastic waste.
According to a 2024 article published in Nature, a leading scientific journal, no western country ranks among the top 90 global plastic polluters, thanks to their near-total waste collection and controlled disposal systems. Conversely, eight countries—India, Nigeria, Indonesia, China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Russia and Brazil—generate more than half of global plastic waste. And nearly 75 per cent of the world’s ocean plastic comes from Asia with only six countries (Philippines, India, Malaysia, China, Indonesia and Myanmar) accounting for most of the world’s ocean plastic pollution.
The Trudeau government’s own science assessment, cited in the court appeal, states that 99 per cent of Canada’s plastic waste is already disposed of safely through recycling, incinerating and environmentally-friendly landfills. Despite these facts, plastic has become a target for blanket restrictions without fully considering its benefits or the downsides of switching to alternatives.
Consider this. Plastics are lightweight, durable and indispensable to modern life. From medical devices, food packaging, construction materials, textiles, electronics and agricultural equipment, plastics play a critical role in sectors that improve living standards.
Alternatives to plastic come with their own environmental cost. Again, according to the government’s own analysis, banning single-use plastics will actually increase waste generation rather than reduce it. While the government expects to remove 1.5 million tonnes of plastics by 2032 with the prohibition, it will generate nearly twice as much that weight in waste from alternatives such as paper, wood and aluminum over the same period. Put simply, the ban will result in more, not less, waste in Canada.
And there’s more. Studies suggest that plastic substitutes such as paper are heavier, require more water and energy to be produced, demand more energy to transport, contribute to greater smog formation, present more ozone depletion potential and result in higher greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
As noted by the Trudeau government, plastic substitutes contribute to lower air quality and “typically have higher climate change impacts” due to higher GHG emissions.
While plastic pollution is a pressing global environmental issue, Canada is not a major contributor to this problem. The rationale behind the Trudeau government’s plastic ban lacks foundation, and as major economies including the U.S. go back to plastic, Canada’s plastic prohibition becomes increasingly futile. The next federal government, whoever that may be, should reverse this plastic ban, which will do more harm than good.
Julio Mejía
Policy Analyst
Elmira Aliakbari
Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
Without reform, Canada risks losing nearly half of its dairy farms by 2030, according to experts
Few topics in Canadian agriculture generate as much debate as supply management in the dairy sector. The issue gained renewed attention when former U.S. President Donald Trump criticized Canada’s protectionist stance during NAFTA renegotiations, underscoring the need to reassess the system’s long-term viability.
While proponents argue that supply management ensures financial stability for farmers and shields them from global market volatility, critics contend that it inflates consumer prices, limits competition, and stifles innovation. A policy assessment titled Supply Management 2.0: A Policy Assessment and a Possible Roadmap for the Canadian Dairy Sector, conducted by researchers at Dalhousie University and the University of Guelph, sheds light on the system’s inefficiencies and presents a compelling case for reform.
Designed in the 1970s to regulate production and stabilize dairy prices, Canada’s supply management system operates through strict production quotas and high import tariffs. However, as successive trade agreements such as the USMCA, CETA, and CPTPP erode these protections, the system appears increasingly fragile. The federal government’s $3-billion compensation package to dairy farmers for hypothetical trade losses is a clear indication that the current structure is unsustainable.
Instead of fostering resilience, supply management has created an industry that is increasingly dependent on government payouts rather than market-driven efficiencies. If current trends persist, Canada could lose nearly half of its dairy farms by 2030 — regardless of who is in the White House.
Consumer sentiment is also shifting. Younger generations are questioning the sustainability and transparency of the dairy industry, particularly in light of scandals such as ButterGate, where palm oil supplements were used in cow feed to alter butterfat content, making butter harder at room temperature. Additionally, undisclosed milk dumping of anywhere between 600 million to 1 billion litres annually has further eroded public trust. These factors indicate that the industry is failing to align with evolving consumer expectations.
One of the most alarming findings in the policy assessment is the extent of overcapitalization in the dairy sector. Government compensation payments, coupled with rigid production quotas, have encouraged inefficiency rather than fostering innovation. Unlike their counterparts in Australia and the European Union — where deregulation has driven productivity gains — Canadian dairy farmers remain insulated from competitive pressures that could otherwise drive modernization.
The policy assessment also highlights a growing geographic imbalance in dairy production. Over 74% of Canada’s dairy farms are concentrated in Quebec and Ontario, despite only 61% of the national population residing in these provinces. This concentration exacerbates supply chain inefficiencies and increases price disparities. As a result, consumers in Atlantic Canada, the North, and Indigenous communities face disproportionately high dairy costs, raising serious food security concerns. Addressing these imbalances requires policies that promote regional diversification in dairy production.
A key element of modernization must involve a gradual reform of production quotas and tariffs. The existing quota system restricts farmers’ ability to respond dynamically to market signals. While quota allocation is managed provincially, harmonizing the system at the federal level would create a more cohesive market. Moving toward a flexible quota model, with expansion mechanisms based on demand, would increase competitiveness and efficiency.
Tariff policies also warrant reassessment. While tariffs provide necessary protection for domestic producers, they currently contribute to artificially inflated consumer prices. A phased reduction in tariffs, complemented by direct incentives for farmers investing in productivity-enhancing innovations and sustainability initiatives, could strike a balance between maintaining food sovereignty and fostering competitiveness.
Despite calls for reform, inertia persists due to entrenched interests within the sector. However, resistance is not a viable long-term strategy. Industrial milk prices in Canada are now the highest in the Western world, making the sector increasingly uncompetitive on a global scale. While supply management also governs poultry and eggs, these industries have adapted more effectively, remaining competitive through efficiency improvements and innovation. In contrast, the dairy sector continues to grapple with structural inefficiencies and a lack of modernization.
That said, abolishing supply management outright is neither desirable nor practical. A sudden removal of protections would expose Canadian dairy farmers to aggressive foreign competition, risking rural economic stability and jeopardizing domestic food security. Instead, a balanced approach is needed — one that preserves the core benefits of supply management while integrating market-driven reforms to ensure the industry remains competitive, innovative and sustainable.
Canada’s supply management system, once a pillar of stability, has become an impediment to progress. As global trade dynamics shift and consumer expectations evolve, policymakers have an opportunity to modernize the system in a way that balances fair pricing with market efficiency. The recommendations from Supply Management 2.0 suggest that regional diversification of dairy production, value-chain-based pricing models that align production with actual market demand, and a stronger emphasis on research and development could help modernize the industry. Performance-based government compensation, rather than blanket payouts that preserve inefficiencies, would also improve long-term sustainability.
The question is no longer whether reform is necessary, but whether the dairy industry and policymakers are prepared to embrace it. A smarter, more flexible supply management framework will be crucial in ensuring that Canadian dairy remains resilient, competitive, and sustainable for future generations.
Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is senior director of the agri-food analytics lab and a professor in food distribution and policy at Dalhousie University.
Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers Releases Seven-Point Plan to Unleash Canada’s Energy Potential
The Next Canadian Federal Election Will Also be a Crucial Energy Issues Election
Federal government could save $10.7 billion this fiscal year by eliminating eight ineffective spending programs
Zelensky Met with Dems Before He Met President Trump
-
Banks10 hours ago“Trade-Based Money Laundering IS THE FENTANYL CRISIS”: Sources expose Chinese-Mexican-Canadian Crime Convergence
-
Business1 day agoNext federal government has to unravel mess created by 10 years of Trudeau policies
-
Business1 day agoTrump’s trade war and what it means for Canada
-
Business13 hours agoBitcoin hits $90K as Trump plans U.S. crypto reserve
-
International1 day agoCommerce Secretary on Oval Office debacle: Zelensky flies to Washington to sign deal then scuttles it
-
Business2 days agoLutnick says Trump could announce tariff compromise Wednesday
-
International20 hours agoWashington Senate passes bill to jail priests for not violating Seal of Confession
-
Alberta1 day agoAlberta pushes back on illegal U.S. tariffs