Business
Trudeau’s Delusion Meets Trump’s Tariffs: 25% Hit on Canada and Mexico Could Cripple Economies Overnight!
In a fiery Truth Social post on November 25th, Donald Trump made his position crystal clear: the days of open borders, unchecked drug smuggling, and illegal immigration are over. The president-elect, set to take office in January, declared that one of his first actions as commander-in-chief will be to slap a 25% tariff on all goods from Mexico and Canada until both nations “use their absolute right and power” to stop the flow of drugs and illegal immigrants into the United States.
The Trump Doctrine Returns
This announcement serves as a bold reminder of Trump’s “America First” strategy, which dominated his first presidency. According to Trump, the current state of the U.S.-Mexico border is a “national emergency,” with caravans from Mexico allegedly bringing record levels of drugs like fentanyl and waves of illegal migrants. Canada isn’t off the hook either, as Trump accuses Justin Trudeau’s government of maintaining what he calls “ridiculous open borders” that have contributed to the crisis.
“Both Mexico and Canada have the absolute right and power to easily solve this long-simmering problem,” Trump stated. “Until such time that they do, it is time for them to pay a very big price!”
Economic Weapons Locked and Loaded
The proposed tariffs are no small matter. A 25% import tax on goods from Canada and Mexico could cripple their export-driven economies, both of which are heavily reliant on U.S. trade:
- Mexico: Over 80% of its exports head to the U.S. A 25% tariff would devastate industries like auto manufacturing, agriculture, and electronics.
- Canada: With 75% of exports destined for the U.S., Canadian businesses are bracing for significant disruptions to key sectors, including energy and auto parts.
Experts warn that these tariffs would also raise prices for American consumers. But Trump’s post signals he’s unfazed by potential backlash. “It’s time for these countries to pay a very big price,” he declared, echoing his tough-on-trade rhetoric from the 2016 campaign trail.
The Bureau – Canada’s Role in the Fentanyl Epidemic
According to The Bureau, U.S. investigators have uncovered a direct connection between Canadian cities—particularly Toronto and Vancouver—and transnational fentanyl money-laundering networks. These networks, allegedly run by Triads with ties to Beijing, are laundering cash for Mexican cartels smuggling fentanyl precursors from China.
David Asher, a former Trump administration official and DEA consultant, didn’t mince words in his interview with The Bureau. He stated that U.S. intelligence points to Canada as the “command and control” hub for these networks, which have fueled the devastating fentanyl crisis.
“When we seized their phones, we’d see Canada light up like a Christmas tree,” Asher said, highlighting how Toronto and British Columbia play central roles in these operations.
Canada’s Tariff Crisis: The Numbers Don’t Lie
Let’s dig into the cold, hard facts, courtesy of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, and they’re downright devastating. Trump’s proposed tariffs aren’t just a political statement—they’re an economic wrecking ball aimed squarely at Canada’s most vulnerable industries. For Justin Trudeau’s government and hapless premiers like David Eby, these numbers are a brutal wake-up call.
The Trade Dependency Trap
Canada’s economic lifeblood is deeply tied to the United States, with 41% of Ontario’s GDP and a staggering two-thirds of New Brunswick’s GDP linked to cross-border trade. And it’s not just Canada feeling the squeeze—states like Michigan (14% GDP dependency) and Illinois (10.2%) rely heavily on Canadian trade.
The kicker? Nearly 63% of Canadian exports to the U.S. are intermediate inputs, meaning they’re critical components for American manufacturing. Canada isn’t just exporting products; it’s exporting the gears that keep U.S. industries turning.
Energy and Autos: The Collateral Damage
Consider this: in the first half of 2024 alone, Canada exported $85 billion in energy and $40 billion in auto parts to the U.S. A 25% tariff would obliterate these sectors, dragging down both economies in the process. And while Trudeau and his team posture about “standing united,” it’s clear their lack of preparation will only deepen the pain for Canadians.
Tariff Fallout: A National Recession Looms
The numbers paint a grim picture: a 25% tariff would deliver a 2.6% GDP decline annually for Canada, costing the average Canadian $2,000 CAD per year in lost income. Add in retaliatory tariffs, and this spirals into a full-blown recession, with cascading impacts on productivity, supply chains, and jobs.
- Auto/Transport Exports: Down 10 percentage points.
- Basic Metals Exports: Down 9 percentage points.
- Chemicals and Paper Products: Exports drop by 8% and 7%, respectively.
- Overall Sector Decline: A staggering 22 percentage points for critical industries.
Meanwhile, cross-border investment—once a pillar of Canada-U.S. relations—is under threat. Canadian investments in the U.S. total $1.1 trillion, but a tariff war risks destabilizing these flows and gutting the broader economic relationship.
Last Weeks Spin Piece from the Canadian Press
As we look at the fallout from Trump’s 25% tariff announcement, let’s take a moment to laugh at this spin piece from the Canadian Press that came out just last week. The article tried to paint a picture of Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly claiming that Donald Trump’s return to the White House has somehow boosted Canada’s influence on the world stage. Yes, you heard that right—Canada, the same country with open borders, an overreliance on U.S. trade, and a prime minister whose leadership is about as effective as a broken clock, is supposedly advising the world on how to handle Trump.
Joly boldly declared from the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Lima, “No country understands the United States better than Canada.” According to her, nations are lining up to learn from Canada’s experience with Trump, as though Trudeau and his team have some masterclass on navigating Trump’s policies. Fast forward to today, with Trump poised to slam Canada with tariffs that could destroy their economy, and the absurdity of this claim is glaring.
This narrative that Canada is a calm, steady hand amid Trump’s return is nothing more than a fantasy. While Joly and Trudeau were hobnobbing at summits, Trump was gearing up to deliver real consequences. His 25% tariff on Canadian imports isn’t hypothetical—it’s a financial wrecking ball aimed at an economy that relies on U.S. trade for survival. Energy exports, autos, and agriculture—the pillars of Canada’s economy—will take a direct hit. But instead of preparing for this, Joly was busy spinning a tale of Canada’s supposed “influence.”
And let’s not forget what Joly was selling in that article. “Canada’s influence is actually increasing because of the impacts that the world is now facing with the new administration.” Increasing? On what planet? Trump’s tariffs make it clear that Canada isn’t leading anything; it’s scrambling to react.
The article also floated the idea that Trudeau was in a “privileged position” because of his past dealings with Trump. Let’s recall how that went, shall we? Trudeau was caught mocking Trump on a hot mic during a G7 summit, embarrassing himself and the country in front of world leaders. His government barely held onto a renegotiated NAFTA—now the USMCA—that Trump rewrote to suit America’s interests. If this is the kind of experience Trudeau brings to the table, it’s no wonder Canada is in trouble.
Meanwhile, the Canadian Press tries to prop up Trudeau as some staunch defender of “rules-based trade,” as though those rules mean anything when Trump has the leverage to rewrite them. Joly spoke about sending “clear messages” to Beijing, yet Trump’s tariff threats expose just how little Canada has done to address the very issues Trump is targeting. Let’s not forget The Bureau’s report on Canada’s role in fentanyl money laundering, with Toronto and Vancouver lighting up as command centers for Triads laundering cash from Mexican cartels. Canada’s failures are part of the problem Trump is confronting.
And here’s the kicker: as of today, neither Trudeau nor Joly has made a peep about Trump’s tariff announcement. No tweets, no press statements, no leadership—just silence. So much for being the world’s go-to expert on Trump. Canada’s leaders are AWOL while Trump tightens the economic screws.
While our beloved PM is silent, Jagmeet Singh, ever the opportunist, couldn’t resist wading into the chaos with his usual brand of hollow theatrics. “Stand up and fight like hell,” he bellowed at Justin Trudeau on Twitter, as though anyone has ever mistaken Singh for a warrior of any kind. Let’s be honest—Singh’s idea of “fighting like hell” probably involves drafting another toothless motion in Parliament or throwing shade on social media while offering zero solutions. This is the same guy who props up Trudeau’s government with his NDP-Liberal supply-and-confidence deal, enabling the very weakness he’s now trying to criticize. Spare us the tough talk, Jagmeet. Bootlicking Trudeau one day and grandstanding the next doesn’t exactly scream credibility.
And as for Trudeau and Mélanie Joly? Their performance over the last week has been nothing short of delusional. While Trump was setting the stage to unleash a 25% tariff that could dismantle Canada’s economy, Trudeau was busy posturing at international summits and snapping photos with global elites. Joly, for her part, claimed that Trump’s return to power somehow boosted Canada’s global influence—because apparently being a punching bag now counts as diplomacy.
This isn’t global influence; it’s global irrelevance. The Trudeau government spent the last week basking in delusion while Trump was preparing to drop the hammer. And now the clock has run out. Stay tuned—because while Trudeau dithers and Singh flails, the reckoning is here.
Final Thoughts
Trump campaigned on a clear and powerful message: tariffs are a weapon to protect American workers and restore national sovereignty. And, folks, he wasn’t wrong. Sure, input costs might rise. Sure, a few elites will clutch their pearls as their profits shrink. But this isn’t about them. This is about something bigger. It’s about standing up for the forgotten workers in Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin who’ve watched their livelihoods vanish thanks to decades of globalist betrayal. Trump’s message is loud and clear: no more one-sided trade deals, no more globalist bull. America comes first.
And what about Canada? What has Justin Trudeau done? He’s alienated an entire nation while dividing our own country with his disastrous, virtue-signaling policies. Trudeau doesn’t just dislike the West—he actively works against it. The West pays the bills in this country, folks. Alberta’s oil sands, Saskatchewan’s agriculture, and British Columbia’s resources prop up this nation’s economy. And how does Trudeau repay them? By demonizing their industries, their workers, and their very way of life to appease his climate cult.
While Trudeau struts on the world stage preaching green fantasies, the West bears the cost. It’s their jobs, their industries, and their communities that are hollowed out to fund his carbon tax schemes. Now, with Trump’s tariffs about to slam Canada’s economy, the true cost of Trudeau’s failures is finally coming home to roost.
How can Canada face this crisis when our so-called leader is more concerned with photo ops, platitudes, and meaningless “climate leadership” than standing up for our country? Trudeau has alienated our most important trading partner, antagonized the West, and is now leaving us unprepared for a showdown with Trump’s America.
Let’s look at the facts. Canada is at odds with China, embroiled in a cold war with India, and now staring down Trump’s tariffs. Every move Trudeau makes puts us further into isolation, weaker and more vulnerable. So here’s the question: can we really afford another year of this man at the helm?
The Trudeau government has run out of excuses, out of allies, and now, out of time. This isn’t just about whether Canada can survive Trump’s tariffs. It’s about whether we can survive another year of Justin Trudeau’s leadership. The reckoning is here, and Canada deserves better.
Business
Long Ignored Criminal Infiltration of Canadian Ports Lead Straight to Trump Tariffs
Sam Cooper
Briefings to Liberal Government on Chinese Infiltration of Vancouver Port and Canada’s Opioid Scourge Ignored
Trump Tariffs Loom as Critics Decry Ottawa’s “Fox in the Hen House” Approach to Border Security
As President Donald Trump readies sweeping tariffs against Canada on Saturday—citing Ottawa’s failure to secure its shared North American borders from fentanyl originating in China—The Bureau has obtained a remarkable December 1999 document from a senior law enforcement official, revealing Ottawa’s longstanding negligence in securing Vancouver’s port against drug trafficking linked to Chinese shipping entities.
The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
The letter, drafted by former Crown prosecutor Scott Newark and addressed to Ottawa’s Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC), urged the body to reconsider explosive findings from a leaked RCMP and CSIS report detailing the infiltration of Canada’s “porous” borders by Chinese criminal networks.
Titled “Re: S.I.R.C. Review in relation to Project Sidewinder,” Newark’s letter alleges systemic failures that enabled Chinese State Council owned shipping giant COSCO and Triads with suspected Chinese military ties to penetrate Vancouver’s port system. He further asserts that federal authorities ignored repeated briefings and warnings from Canadian law enforcement—warnings based on intelligence gathered by Canadian officials in Hong Kong, who initiated the Sidewinder review.
Newark also warned that Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chrétien’s decision to dismantle Canada’s specialized Ports Police and privatize national port control had left the country dangerously exposed to foreign criminal networks, noting he had personally briefed the Canadian government on these concerns as early as 1996.
Addressing his letter to SIRC’s chair, Quebec lawyer Paule Gauthier, Newark wrote:
“As the former (1994-98) Executive Officer of the Canadian Police Association, I was assigned responsibility for dealing with the issue of the federal government’s changes to control of the national ports and policing therein.”
“This involved close examination of matters such as drug, weapon, and people smuggling through the national ports and, in particular, both the growing presence of organized criminal groups at ports and the ominous hazard control of those ports by such groups represented.”
Newark’s letter goes on to allege widespread failures in Ottawa that facilitated Chinese Triad infiltration of Vancouver’s port, revealing federal authorities’ reluctance to act on warnings from RCMP officer Garry Clement and immigration control officer Brian McAdam—former Canadian officials based in Hong Kong who had sounded the alarm, prompting the Sidewinder review.
Newark explained to SIRC’s chair that, during his tenure as Executive Officer of the Canadian Police Association, he prepared approximately fifty detailed policy briefs for the government and regularly appeared before parliamentary committees and in private ministerial briefings.
“I can assure you that in all of that time, no clearer warning was ever given by Canada’s rank and file police officers to the national government than what was done in our unsuccessful attempt to prevent the disbandment of the specialized Canada Ports Police in combination with the privatization of the ports themselves,” Newark’s letter to SIRC states.
The letter continues, noting that in October 1996, Newark met with Chrétien’s Transport Minister David Anderson—later addressing the Transport Committee—to highlight the imminent threat posed by Asian organized crime’s infiltration of port operations. Newark’s written briefing to the Minister underscored the gravity of the situation with a blunt question:
“Who exactly are the commercial port operators?”
Citing the Anderson briefing document, Newark’s letter to SIRC states that Anderson had been warned:
“We are, for example, aware of serious concerns amongst the international law enforcement community surrounding the ownership of ports and container industries in Asia and, in particular, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the People’s Republic of China. There is simply no longer any doubt that drugs like heroin are coming from these destinations through the Port of Vancouver, moved by organized criminal gangs whose assets include ‘legitimate’ properties.”
The Anderson briefing also referenced a British Columbia anti-gang unit report, titled “Organized Crime on Vancouver Waterfront,” which made clear that the Longshoreman’s Union had been infiltrated by the Hells Angels.
“The movement of goods through Canada’s ports requires an independence in policing that is impossible without public control,” the report warned.
It concluded:
“This report should be taken as a specific warning to this Government that, prior to downloading operational control over the ports themselves to private interests, Government be absolutely certain as to who owns what—and that it can continue that certainty with power to refuse acquisition of port assets in the future.”
Scott Newark’s letter to SIRC then turns to new intelligence—gathered from Canadian and U.S. officials—that further underscored the vulnerability created by Chrétien’s border policies.
“To now learn that law enforcement and public officials in Canada and the United States have linked a company (COSCO), granted docking and other facilities in Vancouver, to Asian organized crime, arms and drug smuggling is, to say the least, disturbing,” Newark’s December 1999 letter states.
“That this company, its principals, subsidiaries, and partners have been associated with various military agencies of a foreign government—agencies themselves identified by Canadian and American officials as having unhealthy connections to Triad groups—makes a bad situation even worse.”
Newark next addressed the broader implications of Canada’s failure to enforce border security, particularly in relation to the deportation of foreign criminals—a process he had sought to reform while serving with the Canadian Police Association.
Drawing on his experience, he described a deeply flawed immigration enforcement system, one that allowed individuals with serious criminal records to remain in Canada indefinitely. The problem, he wrote, was twofold: not only were foreign criminals able to enter Canada with ease, but authorities also failed to deport those with outstanding arrest warrants.
Newark recounted how, in 1996, a Cabinet Minister requested that he meet with Brian McAdam, a former senior foreign service officer in Hong Kong who had spent years uncovering organized crime’s grip on Canada’s immigration system. McAdam’s detailed revelations, he wrote, had directly led to the launch of Project Sidewinder.
Newark told SIRC that even after leaving the Canadian Police Association in 1998, he remained in contact with McAdam and other officials working to expose this vast and complex national security risk posed by foreign criminal networks.
It was this ongoing communication that led to an even more alarming discovery. Newark wrote that he was stunned to learn that Canada’s government had not only terminated Project Sidewinder but had gone so far as to destroy some related files.
The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Newark suggests SIRC’s chair, in her review of Sidewinder, should determine whether “Sidewinder should not have been cancelled … why such inappropriate action was taken and at whose direction this was done.”
He concludes that SIRC should also freshly examine why intelligence reporting from the Canadian officials in Hong Kong, Brian McAdam and Garry Clement had been ignored in Ottawa.
Newark’s letter to SIRC says these failures to act on intelligence included the “Inappropriate granting of visas to Triad members or associates” and “Granting of docking facilities with attendant consequences to COSCO”—and “Failure of CIC and Foreign Affairs to respond appropriately to the various information supplied by McAdam and Clement in relation to material pertaining to Sidewinder.”
In an exclusive interview with The Bureau, Garry Clement, who contributed to investigations referenced in Newark’s letter, corroborated many of its claims and provided further insight. Clement recalled his role in Project Sunset, a 1990s investigation into Chinese Triads’ efforts to gain control over Vancouver’s ports.
“I can remember having a discussion with Scott when he wrote that to SIRC because Scott and I go back a long time,” Clement said. “I knew about him writing on it, but I knew it was also buried.”
He described his own intelligence work during the same period:
“I wrote in the nineties when I was the liaison officer in Hong Kong, a very long intelligence brief on the Chinese wanting to basically acquire or build out a port at the Surrey Fraser Docks area. And it was going to be completely controlled by that time, with Triad influence, but it was going to be controlled by China.”
Clement expressed frustration that decades of warnings had gone unheeded:
“The bottom line is that here we are almost 40 years later, talking about an issue that was identified in the ‘90s about our ports and allowing China to have free access—and nothing has been done over that period of time.”
Newark’s urgent recommendation for SIRC to reconsider Sidewinder’s warnings on Vancouver’s ports was never acted upon.
“We still don’t have Port Police. We got nobody overseeing them,” Clement added. “The ports themselves, it’s sort of like putting a fox in the hen house and saying, ‘Behave yourself.’”
Finally, when asked about the Trudeau government’s claim this week that Canada is responsible for only one percent of the fentanyl entering the United States—a figure reported widely in Canadian media—Clement’s response was unequivocal.
“The fact that we’ve become a haven for transnational organized crime, it’s internationally known,” he said. “So when I read that, with the fentanyl—Trump is wrong in that there’s less than 1% of our fentanyl going to the United States. That’s a crock of shit. If you look at the two super labs that were taken down in British Columbia—I think there’s three now—the amount they were capable of producing was more than the whole Vancouver population could have used in 10 years. So we know that Vancouver has become a transshipment point to North America for opiates and cocaine and other drugs because it’s a weak link, and enforcement is not capable of keeping up with transnational organized crime.”
The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
That opinion is evidently acknowledged by British Columbia Premier David Eby, according to documents from Canada’s Foreign Interference Commission that say Eby sought meetings with Justin Trudeau’s National Security Advisor.
A record from the Hogue Commission, sanitized for public release, outlines the “context and drivers” behind Eby’s concerns, including “foreign interference; election security; countering fentanyl, organized crime, money laundering, corruption.”
The documents state Ottawa’s Privy Council Office—which provides advice to Justin Trudeau’s cabinet—had recommended that British Columbia continue to work with the federal government on initiatives like the establishment of a new Canada Financial Crimes Agency to bolster the nation’s ability to respond swiftly to complex financial crimes.
Additionally, the PCO highlighted that Canada, the United States, and Mexico were supposedly collaborating on strategies to reduce the supply of fentanyl, including addressing precursor chemicals and preventing the exploitation of commercial shipping channels—a critical area where British Columbia, and specifically the Port of Vancouver, plays a significant role.
Eby acknowledged the concerns again this week in an interview with Macleans.
“I understood Trump’s concerns about drugs coming in. We’ve got a serious fentanyl problem in B.C.; we see the precursor chemicals coming into B.C. from China and Mexico. We see ties to Asian and Mexican organized crime groups. We’d been discussing all of that with the American ambassador and fellow governors. That’s why it was such a strange turnaround, from ‘Hey, we’re working together on this!’ to suddenly finding ourselves in the crosshairs.”
Yet, despite Eby’s claims of intergovernmental efforts, critics—including Garry Clement—argue that nothing has changed. Vancouver’s port remains alarmingly vulnerable, a decades-old concern that continues to resurface as fentanyl and other illicit drugs flood North American markets.
The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Business
Ottawa’s “Net Zero” emission-reduction plan will cost Canadian workers $8,000 annually by 2050
From the Fraser Institute
Ross McKitrick
Canada’s Path to Net Zero by 2050: Darkness at the End of the Tunnel
The federal government’s plan to achieve “net zero” greenhouse gas emissions will result in 254,000 fewer jobs and cost workers $8,000 in lower wages by 2050, all while failing to meet the government’s own emission-reduction target, finds a new study published today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, nonpartisan Canadian public policy think-tank.
“Ottawa’s emission-reduction plan will significantly hurt Canada’s economy and cost workers money and jobs, but it won’t achieve the target they’ve set because it is infeasible,” said Ross McKitrick, senior fellow at the Fraser Institute and author of Canada’s Path to Net Zero by 2050: Darkness at the End of the Tunnel.
The government’s Net Zero by 2050 emission-reduction plan includes: the federal carbon tax, clean fuel standards, and various other GHG-related regulations, such as energy efficiency requirements for buildings, fertilizer restrictions on farms, and electric vehicle mandates.
By 2050, these policies will have imposed significant costs on the Canadian economy and on workers.
For example:
• Canada’s economy will be 6.2 per cent smaller in 2050 than it would have been without these policies.
• Workers will make $8,000 less annually.
• And there will be 254,000 fewer jobs.
The study also shows that even a carbon tax of $1,200 per tonne (about $2.70 per litre of gas) would not get emissions to zero. Crucially, the study finds that the economically harmful policies can’t achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 and will only reduce GHG emissions by an estimated 70 per cent of the government’s target.
“Despite political rhetoric, Ottawa’s emission-reduction policies will impose enormous costs without even meeting the government’s target,” McKitrick said.
“Especially as the US moves aggressively to unleash its energy sector, Canadian policymakers need to rethink the damage these policies will inflict on Canadians and change course.”
- The Government of Canada has committed to going beyond the Paris target of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 40 percent below 2005 levels as of 2030 and now intends to achieve net zero carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions as of 2050. This study provides an outlook through 2050 of Canada’s path to net zero by answering two questions: will the Government of Canada’s current Emission Reduction Plan (ERP) get us to net zero by 2050, and if not, is it feasible for any policy to get us there?
- First, a simulation of the ERP extended to 2050 results in emissions falling by approximately 70 percent relative to where they would be otherwise, but still falling short of net zero. Moreover, the economic costs are significant: real GDP declines by seven percent, income per worker drops by six percent, 250,000 jobs are lost, and the annual cost per worker exceeds $8,000.
- Second, the study explores whether a sharply rising carbon tax alone could achieve net zero. At $400 per tonne, emissions decrease by 68 percent, but tripling the carbon tax to $1,200 per tonne achieves only an additional 6 percent reduction. At this level, the economic impacts are severe: GDP would shrink by 18 percent, and incomes per worker would fall by 17 percent, compared with the baseline scenario.
- The conclusion is clear: Without transformative abatement technologies, Canada is unlikely to reach net zero by 2050. Even the most efficient policies impose unsustainable costs, making them unlikely to gain public support.
Ross McKitrick
-
Artificial Intelligence2 days ago
DeepSeek: The Rise of China’s Open-Source AI Amid US Regulatory Shifts and Privacy Concerns
-
espionage2 days ago
Democracy Betrayed, The Scathing Truth Behind Canada’s Foreign Interference Report
-
Alberta22 hours ago
AMA challenged to debate Alberta COVID-19 Review
-
Alberta2 days ago
Alberta health ministry to ‘consider’ report calling for end to COVID shots for healthy kids
-
International2 days ago
Elon Musk calls for laws ‘short enough to be understandable by a normal person’
-
National21 hours ago
All 6 people trying to replace Trudeau agree with him on almost everything
-
Business2 days ago
Peavey Mart confirms all 90 stores will be closing
-
Business22 hours ago
Tariffs Coming April 1 ‘Unless You Stop Allowing Fentanyl Into Our Country’