During Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s 9 ½ years as PM, Canadians got used to scandals in the PMO. In his first year in office, he was found guilty of ethics breaches when he accepted an 8-day vacation at the Aga Khan’s private island in The Bahamas. Then there was Elbowgate. Then the Kokanee Grope (2018). The SNC Lavalin Affair (2019) was one of the more public displays of Mr. Trudeau’s arrogance and seeming immunity from legal consequences. First, seeking to shield his friends at SNC-Lavalin from criminal prosecution, he fired his Justice minister, Jody Wilson-Raybould for doing her job and refusing to cover for him. Then came the WE Charity scandal (2020) that saw the Trudeau family benefiting financially from a charity that government helped to fund. Then Blackface emerged. Expensive trips. $6,000 per night hotels. The list goes on.

Somehow, our former PM managed to hang onto his job through multiple elections in spite of his abhorrent record. And his trained seals in the House of Commons continued to display pathetic loyalty with party-line votes on a plethora of democracy-killing bills and ultimately the unconstitutional use of the Emergencies Act, the seizure of the bank accounts of honest Canadians and the flagrant use of violence, paid-for media and a perverted justice system to silence dissent.

But now, we have a new Prime Minister. Can we assume that self-serving conduct and conflicts of interest in the PMO are a thing of the past? Sadly, no.

What about this? Suppose a parliamentarian—maybe one of recent vintage, and thus not familiar with conflict-of interest boundaries—suppose such a parliamentarian were to adopt policies that crippled the nation’s economy, but stood to profit that parliamentarian’s personal investments—even though those investments were “hidden” in a so-called “blind trust,” administered by a close associate? That was the innocent claim Mark Carney made on taking office.

He didn’t know exactly what those investments were (he claimed); but he knew then and knows now exactly in which fields his 103 investments repose. For example, they might involve carbon credit trading or carbon-capture businesses, or requiring airlines to use so-called low-carbon jet fuel; or they might involve building and renting tiny low-cost modular homes. If this man were to adopt or support policies that would enrich companies engaged in such businesses—knowing that he or she was a major shareholder in such businesses—would that entail an illegal conflict of interest?

The recently-minted Prime Minister of Canada was the founder of GFANZ, the Glasgow Foundation for Net Zero—an organization dedicated to expanding businesses that profit from reducing the presence of carbon dioxide in the world’s atmosphere (predicated on the nonsensical assumption that, in the words recently shrieked in Canada’s Parliament by a frenzied Liberal MP, allowing more CO₂ to escape is equivalent to declaring, “Let the world BURN!”

That’s absurd, of course. The relationship of global temperature to CO₂ is obverse—a rising global temperature CAUSES more atmospheric CO₂, not the other way around. But it makes a useful psy-op—a psychological manipulation of public opinion to endorse the illogical imaginary ‘menace’ of a ‘climate catastrophe’. And it would certainly be a useful sales slogan for policies that would enrich carbon-hating enterprises, like those of GFANZ.

Similarly, a major shareholder of a company devoted to building tiny modular homes would find that Canada’s catastrophic housing market—caused by a decade of Liberal mis-government—creates a golden opportunity to profit through federal policies to build and rent such tiny houses. And that would also harmonize with the World Economic Forum’s goal: “You will own nothing; and you’ll be happy.”

Of course, it would also be the death of the Canadian dream of home ownership.

Such a double-barrelled policy environment would be ideal for a parliamentarian who claimed to “own nothing but some cash and real estate,” while holding billions of dollars worth of stock and options in a so-called “blind trust.”

In January, Foreign Interference Commissioner, Justice Marie-Josee Hogue, declared—after investigating the interactions of certain MPs with foreign actors who were seeking to influence Canadian policy decisions—that she had found no real traitors or acts of treason.

“Some parliamentarians engaged in ‘concerning conduct’ on foreign interference, but [she] finds no treason.”

No, it wouldn’t quite be treason. Close, but not quite over the line. That’s part of the problem. Canadians have become too willing to accept behaviour from their politicians that wouldn’t be tolerated by an honest jury of clear-eyed citizens with a lick of common sense and decency. Politicians push the envelope, then get their friends whom they appointed as judges to rubber-stamp their approval.

There is, however, one Canadian political party that doesn’t buy the GFANZ & UN campaign to put our country under fascistic centralized control: CHP Canada. Ask the government-funded legacy media why they never mention CHP? They’ll be too embarrassed by their own mendacity to answer, so do your own research. Visit www.chp.ca to learn more.