Here we go.

The numbers are coming in.

And they are ugly.

Canada’s trade surplus with the United States just collapsed by more than 40 percent in ONE MONTH, falling to just C$5.9 billion.

Exports to America plunged 6.6 percent.

Canada’s overall trade surplus collapsed from C$4.2 billion in June to just C$769 million in July.

And here’s the terrifying part:

This was before the newest 50 percent American tariffs had their full impact.

This isn’t the hurricane.

These are the first drops of rain.

Read more

I’m Canadian.

I live here. I work here. I pay Canadian prices. And if this trade war ends in economic disaster, I am going to live through the consequences alongside millions of other Canadians.

So I need Americans to understand something:

The Canadian people are not driving this bus toward the cliff.

Our government is.

Prime Minister Mark Carney just looked directly at the most powerful government on Earth and said: “Stop doing memes, stop throwing shade and stop trying to be tough.”

That is not diplomacy.

That is a taunt.

Canada’s prime minister is standing at the edge of an economic cliff, looking across the border at President Donald Trump, pounding his chest and shouting: Stop trying to be tough.

But there is one enormous problem.

Trump has the stronger hand.

America has the larger economy, the larger consumer market and far more room to absorb the damage.

Canada does not.

In 2025, almost 72 percent of Canada’s merchandise exports went to the United States. Entire Canadian industries depend on continued access to the American market. Canadian factories, farms, mines, mills and energy producers were built around that relationship.

This is not a contest between equals.

It is a game of economic chicken between an eighteen-wheeler and a family sedan—and Mark Carney has put ordinary Canadians in the passenger seat.

I keep hearing members of my government talk as if this is some glorious national crusade.

They talk about sovereignty. They talk about standing tall. They talk about teaching the Americans a lesson.

It sounds wonderful in a speech.

But speeches do not pay mortgages.

Nationalist slogans do not reopen factories.

And Mark Carney will not be standing beside a Canadian autoworker when that worker receives a pink slip.

He will not be sitting at the kitchen table when a family realizes that the job they depended on has disappeared.

He will not be running the small business whose American customers suddenly decide that buying Canadian is too expensive.

People like me will be living through that.

Ordinary Canadians will pay the bill.

Read more

America’s top trade official just said the quiet part out loud.

“There are no negotiations happening on trade right now,” U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said. Then came the sentence every Canadian should hear: “It’s more their emergency than ours.”

Brutal. Cold. Completely predictable.

Washington understands the battlefield. America is a continental economic superpower: enormous factories, endless capital and a consumer market every country on Earth wants to enter. If this dispute continues, Americans will feel pain. Some prices will rise. Some businesses will lose Canadian customers.

But Canada is staring into something much darker.

Canada sends an enormous share of its exports south. Our factories, mills and towns were built around access to the American market. Take that access away - or bury it beneath 50 percent tariffs - and the bright factory floor becomes a dark, silent warehouse. The assembly line stops. The lunchroom empties. A family that once planned a summer vacation starts calculating how many mortgage payments remain before the savings disappear.

That isn’t theory. Look at Sault Ste. Marie. Algoma Steel announced approximately 1,000 job cuts - about one-third of its workforce - after tariffs made major parts of its operation financially unsustainable. Those aren’t numbers floating around Ottawa. Those are fathers walking through the front door holding termination notices. Those are small businesses wondering what happens when hundreds of local paycheques vanish.

Read more

Canada has an enormous problem.

Not a theoretical problem. Not an Ottawa problem. Not something that can be fixed with another speech about “standing strong.”

A factory problem.

Toyota and Honda - two of the biggest manufacturers in this country - could be forced to shut Canadian production lines if Donald Trump’s threatened 50-percent tariff on Canadian vehicles takes effect.

Think about that how devastating that would be.

Toyota. Honda. Canada. Fifty percent.

This is the Great Auto Squeeze, and Canadian workers could be the ones who pay for it.

Reuters reports that Toyota and Honda together produce more than 75 percent of the vehicles manufactured in Canada. Canadian-built vehicles represented roughly 17 percent of Toyota’s American sales last year and nearly one-quarter of Honda’s.

These aren’t tiny companies selling a few cars across the border.

They are the backbone of Canadian auto manufacturing.

And now ask yourself the simplest question imaginable.

If you’re Toyota and you can manufacture a vehicle in Canada, ship it into America and potentially face a 50-percent tariff - or manufacture more of it inside the United States - what are you going to do?

Read more

Canada’s auto industry just received what should have been very good news.

General Motors has reached a tentative agreement with Unifor that would see the company invest roughly C$1.1 billion in its Ontario operations. The package includes C$144 million to begin assembling the next-generation heavy-duty GMC Sierra in Oshawa, C$215 million for a new generation of transmissions in St. Catharines, and commitments aimed at keeping the CAMI plant in Ingersoll operating.

In normal times, Ottawa would be celebrating.

These are not normal times.

President Donald Trump is threatening to raise tariffs on Canadian cars, trucks and automotive parts to 50 percent beginning January 1. Only days ago, Canadian automakers believed a trade agreement might reduce the existing 25-percent vehicle tariff to 15 percent.

Those negotiations collapsed instead.

That means one of Canada’s most important industries is being asked to make billion-dollar, decade-long investment decisions while access to its largest market is becoming dangerously uncertain.

And this is where Mark Carney’s government has some explaining to do.

Nobody should pretend Washington’s tariff strategy is harmless. A 50-percent tariff on Canadian vehicles would be an extraordinary escalation, and because the North American auto industry is deeply integrated, American producers and consumers could suffer too.

But Ottawa’s job is not merely to declare that Trump is unreasonable.

Its job is to secure the best achievable outcome for Canadian workers.

Read more

Donald Trump just exposed the full cost of a decade of Liberal economic vandalism.

Late Friday, Trump announced that the United States had secured majority control over more than 65 billion barrels of proven Venezuelan oil reserves. The arrangement is intended to guarantee crude supplies to American refineries while attracting nearly $100 billion in private investment.

This does not mean Venezuelan oil will replace Canadian oil tomorrow. Venezuela’s infrastructure is broken, production expansion will take years and legal questions remain. But that is not the point. Washington is actively developing alternatives while Canada remains overwhelmingly dependent on one customer.

In 2025, 90.1 percent of Canada’s crude-oil exports went to the United States. Those exports were worth more than $126 billion. Canada possesses one of the greatest energy endowments on Earth, yet the Liberal Party left our country in the humiliating position of having one dominant buyer for its most valuable resource.

That is not sovereignty. It is economic malpractice.

Read more

For decades, Canadians could look south at the United States and reasonably believe that, economically, we were running roughly the same race.

Then something changed.

From 1997 until early 2015, Canadian and American real GDP per capita grew at almost exactly the same rate: 1.53% annually in Canada versus 1.52% in the United States.

Since 2015?

Canada: 0.82%.

United States: 2.07%.

That isn’t Conservative Party propaganda. Those are Statistics Canada numbers.

For ten years, America has been pulling away while Canada has been falling behind.

And Canadians should ask why.

Justin Trudeau came to power promising that government could simultaneously tax, regulate, redistribute and socially engineer the country into prosperity.

Ottawa expanded spending. It imposed increasingly ambitious climate policies. Resource projects faced years of regulatory uncertainty. Population growth accelerated dramatically without comparable growth in productivity-enhancing investment.

Whatever label you prefer - progressivism, managerial liberalism, or what critics often call cultural Marxism - the governing instinct was remarkably consistent:

Government knew better. Markets needed managing. Energy needed restraining. Wealth needed redistributing. Growth would somehow take care of itself.

It didn’t.

Read more

Canada is in the middle of a trade war that could cost hundreds of thousands of jobs, hammer our auto sector and make an already vulnerable economy even more precarious.

And at exactly this moment, Canadians are being handed a perfect example of how far some of our institutions have drifted from plain language and common sense.

A leaked CBC memo, reportedly signed by Basem Boshra, the network’s senior director of journalistic standards and public trust, instructed staff: “Do not refer to the Sept. 11 attacks as terrorist attacks.” The guidance comes as the 25th anniversary of 9/11 approaches.

CBC says critics are mischaracterizing the directive. A spokesperson said it would be inaccurate to claim journalists were being told to declare 9/11 wasn’t terrorism; rather, CBC says the memo reiterates its longstanding language rules surrounding the words “terrorist” and “terrorism.”

But that explanation is precisely what makes this so remarkable.

Nineteen al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four passenger jets. They deliberately attacked the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Nearly 3,000 people were killed.

If 9/11 requires linguistic hesitation before a journalist can independently call it terrorism, what event possibly qualifies?

For me, this isn’t merely an abstract argument about a CBC style guide.

I have dealt with Boshra before.

Read more

Mark Carney wants Canadians to believe he is the great defender of Canadian sovereignty.

There is just one tiny problem: the government he leads is completely incapable of talking about Canada without first questioning the legitimacy of Canada itself.

At government event after government event, Canadians hear variations of the same ritual: we are gathered on the “traditional” or “unceded” territory of Indigenous peoples. The federal government itself defines a land acknowledgement as recognition that an event is occurring on territory historically or currently occupied by an Indigenous community. The 2025 Speech from the Throne began by acknowledging Parliament sits on the “unceded territory” of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg people.

Legally, of course, a land acknowledgement does not abolish Canadian sovereignty or transfer ownership of Parliament Hill.

But politically, the contradiction is becoming impossible to ignore.

Carney tells Donald Trump that Canada’s sovereignty is sacred. Fine. Then Ottawa turns around and repeatedly emphasizes that the very land from which the Canadian government exercises that sovereignty was never ceded.

So Trump could be forgiven for asking a rather obvious question: Who exactly am I negotiating with?

If Ottawa wants its rhetoric taken literally, perhaps Trump should bypass Carney and negotiate directly with the Indigenous nations whose territory the federal government continually acknowledges.

That is obviously a provocative suggestion. But that is precisely WHY the contradiction matters.

Read more

Mark Carney faced a choice: protect Canadian workers or escalate his confrontation with Donald Trump.

He chose escalation.

Beginning September 8, Ottawa plans to impose “dollar-for-dollar” retaliatory tariffs on American steel, dairy products, appliances, agricultural equipment, pulp and paper, and electronics. Carney presents this as a patriotic defence of Canada. But the people who will pay these tariffs are not politicians in Washington. Canadian importers will pay them at the border, and those costs can then be passed down to Canadian farmers, manufacturers, businesses and families.

Carney escalates. Canadians pay.

When a farmer needs American equipment, it may cost more. When a Canadian manufacturer requires American steel or electronic components, production costs may rise. When a family’s refrigerator breaks, its replacement could become more expensive. Carney gets to posture before the international press while ordinary Canadians are handed another bill.

This is the difference between representing a country and representing an ideology.

A Canada First leader would begin with one question: What decision will best protect Canadian workers, Canadian families and Canadian industry? Carney appears to be asking a different question: How can Canada help defend the international system against Donald Trump’s America First agenda?

That globalist instinct is driving Canada toward a deeper economic confrontation with its largest customer. Nearly 70 percent of Canadian exports go to the United States. Our factories, farms, energy producers and supply chains are inseparably connected to the American market. Yet Carney behaves as though this economic reality can be overcome through European alliances, international conferences and speeches about constructing a new global order.

It cannot.

But there is an even bigger problem: Canadians still have not seen the complete agreement Carney walked away from. And what has emerged about that offer raises an extraordinary question about why he chose escalation at all.

Read more

The central problem with the government’s handling of the failed Canada–U.S. trade negotiations is becoming bigger than tariffs.

It is becoming a question of credibility.

Prime Minister Mark Carney says the agreement offered by the United States was unacceptable. He says Washington introduced last-minute provisions that were unfair, uneconomic and incompatible with Canada’s interests. Canadians are now being asked to accept that judgment while their businesses, workers and families prepare to absorb the consequences of an escalating trade war. We’re staring down the barrel of 100,000 jobs disappeared overnight.

Subscribe now

But why should a decision of this magnitude rest on anybody’s word alone?

That question becomes more important when the Prime Minister’s own recent public statements have repeatedly required clarification after documents became available.

Consider the Gordie Howe International Bridge.

Carney publicly said Canada would not begin sharing toll revenues until the debt incurred building the bridge had been repaid. Yet when the new agreement was released, it showed that half of Canada’s net operating revenues during the first 15 years would instead be directed into a regional development fund controlled by the United States.

Carney later acknowledged that he “could have explained it better.”

Canadians can decide for themselves whether that explanation is sufficient. But the episode demonstrates precisely why documentation matters.

Then there is Brookfield.

During the Liberal leadership race, Carney said that the formal decision concerning Brookfield Asset Management’s move of its principal office to New York occurred after he had left the board. Yet corporate material subsequently circulated publicly included a December 2024 letter bearing Carney’s signature stating that the board had unanimously approved the relevant arrangement while he was still chair.

The same need for precision applies to Carney’s finances.

Carney has said that the only assets he personally retained outside his blind trust were cash, his family home and a cottage. But the assets placed into the trust were considerably broader. Parliamentary evidence has identified holdings connected to Brookfield Asset Management, Brookfield Corporation and Stripe, along with other investments.

His conflict-of-interest screen ultimately identified 103 corporate entities requiring special treatment designed to prevent him from participating in certain matters involving those interests.

On March 25, standing in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister declared that “affordability is the best it has been in over a decade.” When he was subsequently challenged about those words, Carney insisted that he had been referring specifically to rent affordability. But that is not what the original sentence said. Even his narrower defence deserves scrutiny. Canadians may have seen some improvement in asking rents relative to wages from their recent peaks, but that is radically different from telling a country battered by years of rising housing and grocery costs that affordability is the best it has been in more than a decade. In March alone, Statistics Canada reported grocery prices rising another 4.4 percent year over year while overall consumer prices rose 2.4 percent. The government’s own economic update acknowledged that Canadians continued to face substantial pressure from groceries and housing.

Then there was Carney’s extraordinary semiconductor claim. During the Liberal leadership campaign, Carney told Canadians that Canada was America’s “biggest supplier of semiconductors” and went even further, claiming, “We supply almost all their semiconductors.” His campaign subsequently walked the comments back, saying he had intended to emphasize Canada’s importance to the broader North American semiconductor supply chain. The actual trade numbers bear little resemblance to the original claim: U.S. imports of Canadian electronic integrated circuits were only about US$247 million in 2025, while the United States imported tens of billions of dollars’ worth of semiconductors overall. Canada unquestionably matters to American supply chains - in energy, aluminum, critical minerals, autos and many other sectors - but it does not supply anything remotely approaching “almost all” of America’s semiconductors.

And that is exactly why the current trade dispute should not be reduced to another request that Canadians simply accept the Prime Minister’s characterization of events. The issue is not whether every inaccurate statement was deliberate, a mistake, an exaggeration or poorly chosen wording. The issue is that the government’s decision could affect Canadian jobs, factories, investment and living standards for years. Carney says the agreement offered by Washington was unacceptable. Greer says Canada walked away from substantial tariff relief. He publicly described an offer containing potentially substantial tariff reductions, including automobile tariffs that could in some circumstances have fallen as low as 7 percent.

After the bridge controversy, the Brookfield dispute, the affordability statement and the remarkable semiconductor claim, Canadians should not have to choose which politician’s version they trust. Show them the documents. Release the proposed agreement. Let the evidence settle the argument.

I will be LIVE on Youtube Wednesday at 7pm. If you believe Canada needs more independent investigative journalism, help me keep doing it. Become a paid subscriber and directly support this work.

There is something broken about a political system in which the people making the decisions are never the people forced to pay for them. Mark “Crash” Carney and his Layoff Liberals can stand safely behind their podiums, pound their chests, talk about “standing strong” and congratulate themselves for refusing to back down to Donald Trump. They will be surrounded by advisers, protected by generous salaries and praised by friendly commentators for looking courageous. Meanwhile, Canadian workers are left wondering whether their factory, farm, business or next paycheque will still exist six months from now.

Subscribe now

Only days ago, Trade Minister Dominic “Very Close” LeBlanc claimed Canada and the United States were nearing an agreement. Negotiations reportedly included substantial reductions in punishing American tariffs on Canadian automobiles, steel and aluminum. Then the talks collapsed. The United States has now imposed 50-percent tariffs on roughly $20 billion in additional Canadian goods, while Ottawa prepares dollar-for-dollar retaliation beginning September 8. Crash Carney and Very Close LeBlanc get another press conference; Canadian workers get economic uncertainty, threatened jobs and another potential increase in the cost of living.

Since 2015, Canada has fallen dramatically further behind the United States where it matters most: prosperity per person. Statistics Canada calculates that from early 2015 through the third quarter of 2025, real GDP per capita grew at an annualized rate of just 0.82% in Canada versus 2.07% in the United States, while Canadian labour productivity grew less than half as fast. Ottawa celebrated massive population growth as evidence of a growing economy, but rapidly expanding immigration could inflate the headline GDP number even while living standards per Canadian stagnated. At the same time, weak business investment has worsened over roughly the past decade, and Canadian businesses repeatedly identify taxes and regulation as obstacles to investment. The result is a country adding people faster than productivity, investment and infrastructure can keep up: a bigger Canada on paper, but one increasingly poorer relative to our American neighbours.

Read more

Mark Carney sold Canadians one thing above everything else: competence. He was supposed to be the banker, the international operator, the sophisticated technocrat who had spent his career dealing with powerful institutions and powerful people. When Donald Trump threatened Canada’s economy, Canadians were told that this was exactly why Mark Carney was needed. He understood markets. He understood Washington. He understood negotiations. He had the résumé, the experience and the supposedly steady hand required to protect Canada from the most serious economic threat the country had faced in years.

Well, how’s that working out?

Subscribe now

Canada’s most important economic relationship is now in chaos. Trade negotiations with the United States have broken down, major tariffs remain in place, businesses are staring at enormous uncertainty, Canada is retaliating, and the government has been unable to deliver the agreement that Carney’s entire political brand was built around securing. The man who was presented as uniquely qualified to solve this problem now appears to have no solution to it. That is why the political question is no longer whether Mark Carney has an impressive résumé. The question is whether that résumé has produced results. So far, the answer is no.

Mark Carney was elected to handle Donald Trump. He failed.

Read more

Canada has poured billions of taxpayer dollars into asylum, refugee, housing and resettlement programs over the past decade.

Now I want to know exactly where that money went and why some government contracts exploded to 15, 20 and even 30 times their original value.

So I am taking this investigation to the next stage.

I have started identifying and reaching out to the companies connected to some of the most extraordinary contract increases I have uncovered. I want to hear their explanations directly.

Take 9053-9776 Quebec Inc., operating as L’Agence Services Santé.

Subscribe now

One federal agreement connected to services for asylum seekers began at approximately $3.34 million. It was later amended to approximately $30 million, while subsequent federal contracting records listed a total contract value of roughly $64 million.

That is more than 19 times the original value.

A separate Ontario agreement involving the same company reportedly began at approximately $3.36 million before eventually being listed at more than $61 million.

I want to know why.

Then there is Transdev.

An asylum-related transportation contract began at approximately $57,000.

Its amended value eventually reached approximately $1.9 million.

That is roughly 33 times the original amount.

Security connected to the Best Western Montreal provides another remarkable case: approximately $208,000 initially, eventually approaching $3 million.

More than fourteen times the starting value.

XPera Risk Mitigation & Investigation had an agreement beginning around $4.5 million before being amended to approximately $15 million.

And contracts involving the Dev Hotel & Conference Centre climbed from approximately $6.8 million to more than $10 million, while another agreement began around $16.4 million and eventually carried a published contract value approaching $49 million.

These numbers raise obvious questions.

What changed after these contracts were signed?

What additional work was ordered?

Who authorized the amendments?

How much money was actually invoiced and paid?

What profit margins were earned?

And why were the original contract values apparently so far below what taxpayers could ultimately be on the hook for?

To be clear, a published government contract ceiling is not necessarily the same thing as money actually paid, and a large amendment does not by itself prove misconduct.

That is why I am contacting the companies.

They deserve the opportunity to explain these numbers - and Canadian taxpayers deserve to hear those explanations.

THE DOCUMENTS

I am also publishing the underlying research instead of asking Canadians to simply take my word for it.

INVESTIGATION ARCHIVE: [DOWNLOAD V1] | [DOWNLOAD V2] | [DOWNLOAD V3] | [DOWNLOAD V4] | (DOWNLOAD V5)

The tracker contains the government records, spending categories, agreement information and source links behind this investigation.

The current dataset already documents billions in identifiable federal spending while explicitly separating different programs so forecasts, multi-year agreements and annual spending are not improperly mixed together.

And this investigation is not finished.

I intend to contact the biggest recipients, examine the largest amendments, visit relevant locations where possible and keep asking one basic question:

How did contracts worth a few million dollars become contracts potentially worth tens of millions?

The spreadsheets tell us where to start.

Now I want the answers.

I will be LIVE on Youtube tonight at 7pm.

Doug Ford may have thought he was announcing one policy change.

Instead, he may have accidentally opened the door to a much bigger story.

When the Ontario government announced that it was moving to stop certain provincial benefits from going to people living in the province without legal immigration status, the obvious question was: how much money had taxpayers already been spending?

Subscribe now

That question led to another. Then another.

And the deeper I started digging into Canada’s asylum and immigration spending system, the more extraordinary the numbers became.

What began as an investigation into benefits has started uncovering a sprawling network of federal grants, hotel contracts, transportation agreements, security companies, health-service providers and emergency procurements - many of them involving contracts that exploded far beyond their original values.

Consider just one federal disclosure involving 44 contracts connected to Roxham Road.

Their combined original value was approximately $34.3 million.

After amendments?

Approximately $85 million.

That is an increase of roughly 148%.

And that was only the beginning.

One of the most remarkable cases involves 9053-9776 Quebec Inc., operating as L’Agence Services Santé, which provided health and support services for asylum seekers housed by the federal government.

Its contract began at approximately $3.34 million.

It was later amended to $30 million.

Federal contracting records subsequently listed the total contract value at approximately $64 million.

From $3.3 million to roughly $64 million.

More than 19 times the original value.

A separate Ontario contract involving the same company began at approximately $3.36 million and was later listed with a total contract value exceeding $61 million.

Government procurement records caution that a total contract value can represent the maximum possible value rather than the amount ultimately paid.

Fair enough.

But taxpayers are still entitled to ask a very simple question:

How does a contract originally worth $3 million turn into one potentially worth more than $60 million?

Then there is XPera Risk Mitigation & Investigation.

Its asylum-related lodging and support contract started at approximately $4.5 million.

It was amended to $15 million.

More than triple.

Dev Hotel & Conference Centre received another asylum-accommodation contract originally valued at roughly $6.8 million.

That grew to more than $10 million.

A later Dev agreement began at approximately $16.4 million and eventually carried a published contract value approaching $49 million.

Even more concerning, federal records show that an earlier Dev contract was awarded without competition under an “extreme urgency” justification.

Then come some of the most astonishing percentage increases.

Security at the Best Western Montreal initially involved a contract worth approximately $208,000.

Its amended value eventually reached almost $3 million.

More than 14 times the original amount.

A Transdev transportation contract began at approximately $57,000.

Its amended value reached approximately $1.9 million.

That is roughly 33 times the original value.

There is even a food-services contract involving Les Cuisines de l’Air Culin-Air Inc. where federal records listed an original and amended value of approximately $410,000, while the same disclosure reported more than $470,000 invoiced.

There may be an administrative explanation.

But that is precisely the point.

Why should ordinary Canadians have to dig through obscure government contracting records to discover things like this?

And these contracts sit inside a vastly larger system.

The federal government says direct temporary accommodations for asylum claimants cost approximately $1.2 billion between 2020 and 2025.

That included hotels, meals, security, transportation and support services.

Separate federal housing programs transferred hundreds of millions more to provinces and municipalities.

This entire investigation began because Doug Ford finally drew attention to one corner of the system.

But the bigger story is no longer simply whether somebody without legal status should receive a particular provincial benefit.

The bigger question is:

How large is the entire taxpayer-funded immigration and asylum infrastructure that Canadians have been financing without ever seeing the full bill in one place?

That is what I am now trying to uncover.

Contract by contract.

Grant by grant.

Hotel by hotel.

Because when government contracts can rise by hundreds—or even thousands—of percent, billions can disappear into accommodation and support systems, and taxpayers are left piecing together the costs themselves, Canadians deserve far more than another government press release.

They deserve the receipts. If you’d like to support this project you can do so below.

I will be LIVE on Youtube Friday night at 7pm.

The woke brigade spent the last decade pretending population growth was economic growth. Now the bill on that stupidity is coming due.

Between 2022 and 2024, Canada added more than three million people. Adjusted for America’s population, that is roughly equivalent to the United States adding 26 million people in three years. Almost all of Canada’s extraordinary population growth came through international migration.

Ottawa didn’t build three million people’s worth of housing, infrastructure or productive capital first. It opened the doors and congratulated itself when headline GDP increased.

But GDP isn’t the standard of living.

GDP per capita is.

And on that measure, Canada has been getting crushed.

Subscribe now

Since 2015, Canada’s GDP per capita has grown at barely 0.6% a year. America has grown roughly three times faster.

The OECD says Canada’s post-pandemic population explosion increased the labour supply without a comparable increase in productivity-enhancing investment. More damningly, it says the composition of recent immigration - including large numbers of students and temporary workers - likely reduced average labour productivity and weighed on GDP per capita.

Even Ottawa FINALLY admitted the international-student system had experienced “unsustainable growth” and serious program-integrity problems.

That is the Liberal economic model in one sentence:

Add people faster than you add wealth, then point to the bigger total and call it prosperity.

It worked beautifully for landlords looking for tenants (cough Brookfield cough), colleges looking for tuition, corporations looking for workers and governments looking for a larger tax base. It worked far less well for Canadians competing for apartments, entry-level jobs, doctors and public services.

Now that weakened economic position is colliding with Donald Trump.

Read more

Canadian taxpayers have spent at least $9 BILLION since 2015 on refugee, asylum and humanitarian programs - and that is only the spending we can readily identify.

The real bill is higher. Provincial welfare payments, municipal shelters, legal aid, schools, enforcement, appeals and other costs are scattered across different governments and programs. Canadians still do not have one public accounting showing what the entire system has cost them.

So we’re going to build one.

I’m creating the Canadian National Asylum Spending Ledger: a year-by-year, program-by-program accounting of where the money went, who received it and what taxpayers paid for. If the government won’t put the full bill in one place, we will.

Subscribe now

For years, taxpayers have been told that the cost of Canada’s refugee and asylum system is simply the price of compassion. But when you start adding up the programs that are actually visible in federal records, the numbers become staggering. Our preliminary tally has already identified roughly $9 billion in federal spending since 2015 across refugee, asylum and humanitarian housing, health, resettlement and related programs. And that is not a complete national bill. That is a floor, not a ceiling. It does not capture every provincial welfare payment, municipal shelter expense, legal-aid cost, school expense, appeal, enforcement action or administrative dollar.

That is why we are launching a project to track it. Identify exactly how many of your tax dollars have gone to Niagara hotels, free healthcare, etc.

The goal is simple: build a public, searchable Canadian ledger showing where the money went, who received it, under which program, in what year, and for what stated purpose. Every grant. Every contribution. Every asylum-hotel payment we can identify. Every federal transfer to provinces and cities for asylum housing. Every major refugee and asylum health expenditure. Every resettlement assistance program. Every contractor and recipient we can trace through public records.

This matters because the asylum system is not processing only successful refugee claims. The federal government itself says only about 60 to 65 per cent of claims are accepted; roughly one in three are refused, withdrawn or abandoned. Ottawa has also acknowledged that reforms were needed to deter people from using asylum procedures to bypass regular immigration rules or extend temporary stays. That does not mean every rejected claimant acted fraudulently. It does mean taxpayers deserve to know how much public money is being consumed by claims that ultimately fail.

The spending is growing quickly. Ottawa says the Interim Housing Assistance Program has transferred about $1.7 billion to provinces and municipalities since 2017. The Interim Federal Health Program alone was allocated $896.5 million in 2024–25, and government figures say asylum claimants made up more than two-thirds of its beneficiaries that year. In 2024–25, the federal Resettlement Assistance Program spent another $375.7 million.

Then there is the question of people who are not legally entitled to remain in Canada. In August 2026, Ontario changed its rules to end social-assistance eligibility for people living in Canada without legal status. That raises an obvious question: how much was paid before the rule changed, for how long, and in which jurisdictions?

Canadians deserve an answer.

This project will not label every asylum claimant a fraud, and it will not lump legitimate refugees together with abuse of the system. It will do something much harder for government to dismiss:

Publish the receipts.

We want to go back year by year, department by department and program by program. We want to build the database government should already have made easy for taxpayers to inspect.

If you believe Canadians deserve to know where their money went, support this project. Paid subscriptions, donations, research tips and help digging through government records will allow us to keep expanding the ledger. The bigger this becomes, the harder it will be for politicians and bureaucracies to hide the true cost behind scattered reports, obscure grant databases and departmental accounting.

The taxpayers paid the bill. Now the taxpayers deserve to see it.

Stay tuned as I build this out and begin releasing findings later this week.

I will be LIVE on Youtube Wednesday at 7pm - if you’d like to support the Canadian National Asylum Spending Ledger Project you can do so below.

Since 2015, Canadian taxpayers have spent roughly $9 billion in readily identifiable federal expenditures on refugee, asylum and humanitarian housing, health and resettlement programs alone - and governments still cannot tell taxpayers the complete cost across every level of government.

That should be the starting point of any serious discussion about Canada’s asylum system. Not rhetoric. Not slogans. Not accusations about whether Canadians are sufficiently compassionate. Nine billion dollars, based on identifiable federal programs alone, while Canadians struggle with housing costs, food prices, medical wait times and taxes that seem to rise no matter which direction the economy moves.

And even the $9-billion figure does not represent the complete cost.

Subscribe now

It is assembled from major federal programs for which spending figures are publicly available: asylum housing, federally operated hotels, refugee and asylum health coverage, resettlement assistance and related humanitarian expenditures. It does not comprehensively capture provincial welfare, municipal shelter spending that was never reimbursed by Ottawa, provincial health costs after newcomers transition onto provincial systems, education expenses, immigration hearings, legal aid, appeals, enforcement or the administrative machinery required to process an asylum system that has expanded enormously over the last decade.

In other words, $9 billion is closer to an identifiable floor than a complete national price tag.

Read more

Something is badly wrong in Canada when people who speak openly about politics can receive threats, yet institutions that claim to be protecting democracy seem obsessed with looking for danger in only one ideological direction. I have been receiving threats from people on the political left. I am not going to pretend that every left-wing Canadian is violent. But I am also not going to play the game where intimidation from the left is treated as background noise while governments, academics and taxpayer-funded organizations devote enormous attention to “right-wing extremism.”

Subscribe now

Look at where the money goes. Public Safety Canada’s Community Resilience Fund lists projects explicitly devoted to “Right-wing Extremism in Canada” and an “Incel Radicalization Prevention Program.” One current agreement to Ontario Tech University is worth $2,186,501 and funds ongoing monitoring of the right-wing extremist movement. A White Ribbon incel-prevention project is worth $2,740,179. An earlier Ontario Tech project updating an environmental scan of right-wing extremism received $396,385. That is more than $5.3 million across just those three disclosed agreements. Yet on Public Safety Canada’s current project list, I could not find a project explicitly dedicated to studying left-wing extremism or left-wing political violence.

This is the institutional blind spot Marco Rubio attacked in Washington this summer. Addressing officials from more than 60 countries, the U.S. secretary of state argued that counterterrorism institutions had developed a “blind spot” toward extremist violence from the political left and said people in positions of power had sometimes dismissed violence when it served a left-wing cause. The State Department then announced a policy shift aimed specifically at far-left terrorist and aligned groups. Critics, including Democratic lawmakers, argue that far-right violence has historically been more prevalent in the United States. Fine. Right-wing violence should be investigated. Islamist terrorism should be investigated. Left-wing violence should be investigated. The point is not to replace one ideological bias with another. The point is to stop pretending violence becomes less dangerous when the perpetrator has fashionable politics.

Canada desperately needs that principle. We have built an ideological bureaucracy that too often appears to decide who is suspicious before it decides what conduct is dangerous. If a nationalist, populist or anti-establishment Canadian says something provocative, experts appear to analyze “radicalization,” “misinformation” and “extremism.” But when intimidation comes from the other direction, where is the same curiosity? Where are the multimillion-dollar studies? Where is the national conversation about political hatred on the left?

I am not asking for special protection because I make political videos. I am asking for one standard. Threatening people is wrong. Political violence is wrong. Intimidation designed to silence dissent is wrong.

And I am not going to shut up because somebody sends me a threat. If anything, it has made the problem clearer. A free country does not tell citizens which political violence they are permitted to notice. A serious government investigates threats based on conduct, evidence and danger - not whether the suspect’s ideology is popular with the people handing out the grants.

Canada does not need another ideological crusade. It needs institutions willing to look left, right and straight ahead.

Until that happens, Canadians have every reason to ask whether the system protecting them has been politically captured.

I will be LIVE on Youtube tonight at 7pm - if you’d like to support the fight against these Communists and the Fight For Canada Movement you can do so below.

Doug Ford has finally done something that should never have required a political fight: Ontario has changed its social-assistance rules so people living in Canada illegally cannot collect Ontario Works or ODSP. The province is also tightening eligibility for temporary residents, including many student- and work-permit holders, and requiring applicants to demonstrate their citizenship or immigration status.

Good. But how was this ever allowed in the first place?

Subscribe now

A welfare system funded by Canadian taxpayers is supposed to be a last-resort safety net for people toward whom Canada has a legal responsibility. If somebody has no legal right to remain in this country, the government’s first responsibility should be enforcing the law - not making unlawful residence easier to sustain with taxpayer money. Ford deserves credit for finally confronting the absurdity, but after a decade in which governments allowed Canada’s immigration and asylum systems to become increasingly overwhelmed, this deserves something closer to a “20 Years Too Late Award” than a medal for political courage.

Read more