2025 Federal Election
Canada’s press tries to turn the gender debate into a non-issue, pretend it’s not happening

From LifeSiteNews
When a conservative reporter asked Mark Carney how many genders there are and the prime minister gave an evasive answer, liberal journalists considered the question inappropriate because they want to control the narrative.
By any traditional journalistic standard, the reconstitution of reality by transgender ideology is one of the biggest stories of our generation. Indeed, in the middle of the Canadian election campaign, the UK Supreme Court ruled that “transwomen” are not women, triggering a massive backlash from the transgender movement and widespread celebration from those still possessed of common sense.
In Canada, however, the press — with the exception of the National Post and several independent outlets — has more or less collectively agreed to ignore the topic and to treat the matter as if it is settled. The mainstream broadsheets simply assume the validity of gender ideology and the social victory of the transgender movement regardless of the debates raging across the Western world.
Thus, when Alex Zoltan of Juno News managed to ask Prime Minister Mark Carney a question after the French debate, he touched a topic the rest of the media was avoiding like the plague: “How many genders are there?”
This is obviously a relevant question, with direct relevance to government policy. Current government guidelines state that gender is distinct from sex, and the Trudeau government introduced a non-binary gender option (“X”) for passports and other federal documents. Government missives have consistently referred to recently invented identities such as “two-spirit,” and last year Justin Trudeau explicitly stated that “transwomen are women” — on International Women’s Day (the UK Supreme Court disagrees).
Zoltan’s question was simple: “How many genders are there?”
In Mark Carney's Canada, stopping men from going into women's rape shelters is only a "general objective." pic.twitter.com/qJNqaBMUpt
— Alex Zoltan (@AmazingZoltan) April 20, 2025
Carney was uncomfortable but obviously prepared for the question. “Uhhhh … in terms of sex, there are two. Thank you.”
Zoltan: “My follow-up question then. Do you believe that women, biological women, have the right to their own spaces, their own sports, their own changerooms, their own prisons, their own homeless shelters?”
Here, Carney vacillated. The policy of the Trudeau government has been to segregate based on “gender” rather than biological sex. “This is Canada,” Carney stated obviously. “Um, and, um, ah, as a general objective, yes, but we work where we value all Canadians for who they are and we’ll continue to do so. Thank you very much.” In short: Carney performed a neat, albeit stumbling, pivot. He affirmed two sexes — as Pierre Poilievre has — but also appeared to affirm the Trudeau government’s transgender policies.
It is safe to assume that Carney, who has an adult daughter who identifies as non-binary, will not roll back any of Trudeau’s transgender policies, although he will likely be less performative about his LGBT activism. But what was as notable as his response to the question was the Canadian establishment’s reaction. Despite the fact that Zoltan’s question was incredibly relevant, they immediately responded as if only a fringe extremist would bother to touch on an issue so miniscule as the radical overhaul of our laws by a radical movement.
From the CBC:
True North dared ask Mark Carney if women deserve sex-based spaces, and the establishment is LIVID.
CBC cries it’s “unrelated to the debate.” 😢
They are desperate to control the narrative AND big cowards for not asking such a basic question already.pic.twitter.com/AhZmbKFlvE
— Cosmin Dzsurdzsa (@cosminDZS) April 17, 2025
The CBC complained that the topic was “unrelated to the debate.” Of course, the mainstream press has appointed itself the gatekeepers of which topics get covered, and transgender ideology has been ruled off-limits — which is why the state broadcaster would not even cover the UK’s Cass Review, which condemned the “gender-affirming care” so enthusiastically defended by the CBC and other outlets.
Journalist Wyatt Sharpe claimed the question was “American,” somehow — as if Canada has not been out front on these issues: “How many Canadians genuinely care about ‘how many genders there are?’… that is the type of American culture war style question that True North, Rebel, etc were hoping to cause Mr. Carney to not be able to answer. He answered it fine, and that’s why True North and Rebel haven’t been posting the question like they usually would across social media.”
The quintessential response came from David Beaudoin: “True North finally makes it on prime time. We’re in a trade war with the U.S. The economy is in peril. Here is a world-renowned economist running for Prime Minister. Time to show Canadians you’re a serious news outlet. ‘How many genders are there?’”
The message is clear. Men in women’s prisons? Men in female spaces? Women getting sexually assaulted by men in women’s shelters? Girls getting double mastectomies? Children getting socially transitioned by public schools without the knowledge of their parents, an issue taken up by several provinces (one of which used the notwithstanding clause to stop it)? The mainstream press has ruled from on high: Not real issues.
So, to all the women and girls and parents concerned about these issues: Shut up, they explained.
2025 Federal Election
Mark Carney Wants You to Forget He Clearly Opposes the Development and Export of Canada’s Natural Resources

From Energy Now
At COP26, Mark Carney also said that he thinks “we have both far far too many fossil fuels in the world” and “as much as half of oil reserves, proven oil reserves need to stay in the ground” climate goals.
Mark Carney claims that he supports Canada’s oil and gas industry and wants to see Canada export more of our natural resources. But Carney is yet again lying.
If Carney was sincere, he would immediately commit to the full repeal of the Liberals’ C-69, the ‘No More Pipelines’ Act, C-48, the West Coast Tanker Ban, and the production cap. Instead he doubled down on capping Canadian energy production.
But it’s not just that, Mark Carney has a clear history of opposing Canadian energy and infrastructure projects in favour of his radical anti-energy ideology and his goal of shutting down Canadian energy production.
However, while deliberately fighting against Canadian energy, this high flying hypocrite was having his company, Brookfield Asset Management, invest in some of the largest global pipeline projects in Brazil and the United Arab Emirates.
When asked by Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre at an Industry Committee meeting, if he supported Justin Trudeau’s decision to veto the Northern Gateway pipeline, Mark Carney said “given both environmental and commercial reasons … I think it’s the right decision.”
Then, just six months later at COP26, Mark Carney also said that he thinks “we have both far far too many fossil fuels in the world” and “as much as half of oil reserves, proven oil reserves need to stay in the ground” climate goals.
If this wasn’t enough Mark Carney has now teamed up with Trudeau’s radical anti-energy ministers to finish off Canada’s energy sector, a goal that he has outlined while attending a World Economic Forum event in Davos.
Starting with the radical, self-proclaimed socialist, Steven Guilbeault, who’s history of anti-energy and infrastructure policies is all too familiar to Canadians.
Mark Carney has enabled Steven Guilbeault to do even more damage by promoting him to his Quebec Lieutenant, giving him three new ministerial responsibilities so he can continue his climate crusade against Canadian energy and infrastructure projects.
Canadians remember when Guilbeault said that “I disagree with the [Trans Mountain] pipeline” and that “Canada shouldn’t be investing in new infrastructure for fossil fuels.”
They also remember when he proudly proclaimed that “Our government has made the decision to stop investing in new road infrastructure.” All from a minister who shamed Canadians for owning cars.
Then there is the pipeline hating Jonathan Wilkinson, who Carney appointed as Canada’s Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. Recently, Wilkinson wrote a scathing letter to Canada’s energy leaders for their opposition to the Carney-Trudeau Liberals production cap on Canadian oil and gas.
Despite Canadian industries being subject to unjustified tariffs from the United States, Jonathan Wilkinson recently told reporters that “Everybody’s sort of running around saying, ‘Oh my God, we need a new pipeline, we need a new pipeline.’ The question is, well, why do we need a new pipeline?”
Finally, there is Carney’s new Minister of Environment and Climate Change Terry Duguid. Duguid has doubled down on Mark Carney’s climate radicalism by stating that “a Mark Carney government will maintain the cap on emissions from the production of oil and gas”.
From 2015 to 2021 Carney-Trudeau environmental and anti-industry policies have cancelled over $176 billion in Canadian energy projects, with many more being cancelled afterwards. That means $176 billion worth of jobs and powerful paycheques have been blocked from Canadians so Mark Carney and his Ministers can impose their radical net zero ideology.
2025 Federal Election
Canada’s pipeline builders ready to get to work

From the Canadian Energy Centre
“We’re focusing on the opportunity that Canada has, perhaps even the obligation”
It was not a call he wanted to make.
In October 2017, Kevin O’Donnell, then chief financial officer of Nisku, Alta.-based Banister Pipelines, got final word that the $16-billion Energy East pipeline was cancelled.
It was his job to pass the news down the line to reach workers who were already in the field.
“We had a crew that was working along the current TC Energy line that was ready for conversion up in Thunder Bay,” said O’Donnell, who is now executive director of the Mississauga, Ont.-based Pipe Line Contractors Association of Canada (PLCAC).
“I took the call, and they said abandon right now. Button up and abandon right now.
“It was truly surreal. It’s tough to tell your foreman, who then tells their lead hands and then you inform the unions that those three or four or five million man-hours that you expected are not going to come to fruition,” he said.

Workers guide a piece of pipe along the Trans Mountain expansion route. Photograph courtesy Trans Mountain Corporation
“They’ve got to find lesser-paying jobs where they’re not honing their craft in the pipeline sector. You’re not making the money; you’re not getting the health and dental coverage that you were getting before.”
O’Donnell estimates that PLCAC represents about 500,000 workers across Canada through the unions it works with.
With the recent completion of the Trans Mountain expansion and Coastal GasLink pipelines – and no big projects like them coming on the books – many are once again out of a job, he said.
It’s frustrating given that this could be what he called a “golden age” for building major energy infrastructure in Canada.
Together, more than 62,000 people were hired to build the Trans Mountain expansion and Coastal GasLink projects, according to company reports.
O’Donnell is particularly interested in a project like Energy East, which would link oil produced in Alberta to consumers in Eastern and Atlantic Canada, then international markets in the offshore beyond.
“I think Energy East or something similar has to happen for millions of reasons,” he said.
“The world’s demanding it. We’ve got the craft [workers], we’ve got the iron ore and we’ve got the steel. We’re talking about a nation where the workers in every province could benefit. They’re ready to build it.”

The “Golden Weld” marked mechanical completion of construction of the Trans Mountain Expansion Project on April 11, 2024. Photo courtesy Trans Mountain Corporation
That eagerness is shared by the Progressive Contractors Association of Canada (PCA), which represents about 170 construction and maintenance employers across the country.
The PCA’s newly launched “Let’s Get Building” advocacy campaign urges all parties in the Canadian federal election run to focus on getting major projects built.
“We’re focusing on the opportunity that Canada has, perhaps even the obligation,” said PCA chief executive Paul de Jong.
“Most of the companies are quite busy irrespective of the pipeline issue right now. But looking at the long term, there’s predictability and long-term strategy that they see missing.”
Top of mind is Ottawa’s Impact Assessment Act (IAA), he said, the federal law that assesses major national projects like pipelines and highways.
In 2023, the Supreme Court of Canada found that the IAA broke the rules of the Canadian constitution.
The court found unconstitutional components including federal overreach into the decision of whether a project requires an impact assessment and whether a project gets final approval to proceed.
Ottawa amended the act in the spring of 2024, but Alberta’s government found the changes didn’t fix the issues and in November launched a new legal challenge against it.
“We’d like to see the next federal administration substantially revisit the Impact Assessment Act,” de Jong said.
“The sooner these nation-building projects get underway, the sooner Canadians reap the rewards through new trading partnerships, good jobs and a more stable economy.”
-
International2 days ago
Pope Francis Dies on Day after Easter
-
International2 days ago
JD Vance was one of the last people to meet Pope Francis
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
Ottawa Confirms China interfering with 2025 federal election: Beijing Seeks to Block Joe Tay’s Election
-
COVID-191 day ago
Nearly Half of “COVID-19 Deaths” Were Not Due to COVID-19 – Scientific Reports Journal
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
How Canada’s Mainstream Media Lost the Public Trust
-
2025 Federal Election21 hours ago
BREAKING: THE FEDERAL BRIEF THAT SHOULD SINK CARNEY
-
Media19 hours ago
CBC retracts false claims about residential schools after accusing Rebel News of ‘misinformation’
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
Real Homes vs. Modular Shoeboxes: The Housing Battle Between Poilievre and Carney