Passenger Freighter Travel

  • Home
  • Passenger Freighter Travel

Passenger Freighter Travel A page from The Cruise People, Ltd. on passenger freighter travel. A reminder - neither pets nor vehicles are carried - sorry.

17/02/2026

Despite what the Ford government says, expect deficits for years to come
by Jay Goldberg

February 17, 2026 | 3 min read

The Ford government and the Financial Accountability Office (FAO) are once again greatly at odds with one another about the state of the province’s finances.

According to Finance Minister Peter Bethlenfalvy, Ontario’s finances are still in relatively decent shape.

Bethlenfalvy has consistently insisted that the province’s budget will get back to balance in 2027-28, just over one year from now.

After tabling Ontario’s fall economic statement late last fall, Bethlenfalvy was adamant that Ontario’s budget would finally get back into the black by 2027.

But a new FAO report says that in the very same year Bethlenfalvy recently projected a small surplus, Ontarians should instead expect a hefty $8.5-billion deficit.

In fact, the FAO analysed Ontario’s finances through 2029-30 and doesn’t expect to see a balanced budget even once during that timeframe.

Why is there such a misalignment between the Finance Ministry and the FAO?

Bethlenfalvy’s numbers project significantly higher revenues and significantly lower expenses than the FAO’s outlook.

And, between fiscal years 2024-25 and 2029-30, the FAO expects Ontario’s debt to increase by a whopping $120.9 billion, or 28.3 per cent.

The FAO report, if read in its entirety, is an indictment of the Ford government’s overall fiscal management.

The FAO notes that revenue over the past five years has grown at an average annual rate of 7.6 per cent. Yet, despite all that new cashflow, this year’s deficit is still expected to be north of $13 billion.

Why?

Because government spending over the past five years has grown at an average annual rate of 6.5 per cent, well above inflation plus population growth.

If the Ford government had kept spending down over the past number of years, the conversation today would be about how large the surplus would be in 2027, not whether the much-anticipated balanced budget will come to pass at all.

The Ford government came to office promising to end the party with taxpayers’ money. But if things go the way the FAO is projecting, and the FAO has been right much more often than the Finance Ministry has, Ontario’s debt will be nearly $550 billion before the next time Ontarians head to the polls.

What’s driving overall spending growth?

In the coming years, the FAO expects healthcare spending to be much higher than the government has currently forecast.

Bethlenfalvy is presently forecasting healthcare spending to grow at an average annual rate of one per cent. The FAO, on the other hand, expects to see 4.6 per cent growth.

Given the healthcare challenges the province is facing, and the Ford government’s primary care commitments, it’s hard to see the government holding healthcare spending growth down to just one per cent.

The bad news in the FAO report doesn’t stop there. The FAO expects real GDP growth to remain below two per cent per year all the way through 2030. And, continuing on a recent negative trend, Ontario’s economic growth is expected to lag that of the country at large.

Is it even possible for the government to achieve a balanced budget by 2027?

In order to wipe out a projected $8.5-billion deficit, Bethlenfalvy and Premier Doug Ford would have to significantly cut spending to get there and hope that economic growth comes in much stronger than forecast.

Given the current government’s long history of refusing to rein in spending and the global economic uncertainty due to U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs, that’s a tall order.

So, despite what the Ford government is telling taxpayers, don’t expect a balanced budget anytime soon.

For a party that came to power promising to straighten out the province’s finances, a sea of red ink after eight years in government sure doesn’t look pretty.

17/02/2026

Climate policy SNAFU
by Catherine Swift

February 17, 2026 | 4 min read

Last week a report was published that finally admitted Canada was not on track to meet any of its many climate goals that have been imposed over the past few decades. That’s right, not even one. Unfortunately, this report was not given the kind of coverage in the legacy media it deserved, likely because it makes the Carney Liberal government look bad and the legacy media dearly want to continue their massive subsidies with billions of our tax dollars so nothing negative can be said about the Liberals.

Most of the supposedly binding climate goals were set during the Trudeau Liberal government years although others came into being prior to that. After all, it was back in 1998 that then-prime minister Jean Chrétien signed the Kyoto protocol and got all kinds of credit for doing so. Chrétien went on to do absolutely nothing to implement the policy, although Liberals continued to boast about how they had signed this climate agreement. Despite no follow-through, it sure did make a very nice photo-op and had the environmental crowd singing Chrétien’s praises for basically doing nothing.

The report that announced all of these failures was done by the Canadian Climate Institute (CCI), a largely government funded body that most objective climate policy observers view as extreme if not radical. By publishing this report, the Institute is likely attempting to encourage policy makers to toughen up on climate policies so more progress can be made on goals in future. In fact, the conclusion notes, among other things, that “The further Canada veers away from its climate targets, the steeper the path forward. That puts critical economic opportunities at risk – especially as our non-U.S. trading partners are rapidly decarbonizing their economies and looking for solutions.”

Nice try, but our non-U.S. trading partners are actually backing off their climate policies as they’ve seen how destructive they have been to jobs and their economies. We have been told for years that the environment and the economy go hand in hand, but the facts indicate exactly the opposite. Germany is a good example, as their foolish shutting down of nuclear power plants and massive construction of unreliable wind turbines greatly increased the price of electricity and left them excessively dependent on Russia for natural gas at a time when Russia was invading Ukraine. The rapid increase in electricity costs has driven many large manufacturers out of Germany, which used to be viewed as the economic powerhouse of Europe but is now struggling to compete and keep its citizens warm in winter.

The CCI report itemizes the extent to which Canada has failed to meet its various climate targets. For instance, the report concludes Canada will not meet its 2035 emissions target and achieve net zero emissions by 2050. It estimates that instead, national emissions are on course to be about halfway to the 2030 emissions goal. As of 2023, Canada has only managed a nine per cent emissions reduction. Even the U.S., often viewed as worse than Canada, had cut emissions by 17 per cent – almost twice that of Canada.

Some climate apologists claimed the failure of Canada to meet targets was because Prime Minister Mark Carney had lightened up on some of the green policies. That was merely a lame excuse. It’s been clear for some time that targets were not going to be reached, and Carney has actually done very little to reduce the climate policy-related red tape stranglehold on Canadian industry. As we heard from the CEO of Enbridge, Greg Ebel, just last week, there are far too many regulatory, political and development risks in building a major energy project in Canada. All Carney has done is soften or pause some climate policies, while leaving most of the bad laws that are holding Canada back in place. Canada’s current reputation as a place where nothing gets done will not change based on a few non-binding Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs).

The findings of the CCI are by no means unique to Canada. All over the world, countries have been signing various climate protocols so that they can appear to be doing something, while producing nothing other than press releases and photo-ops. If they try to implement even a portion of these punitive policies, they find they destroy many more jobs than they create and render economies uncompetitive. Trillions of dollars world-wide have been spent on useless climate policies, when they could have been helping lower-income countries find their way out of poverty, saving lives and improving living standards globally.

The CCI recommendations – typical for an ideological climate group – are to double down on these policies and make things even more difficult for average citizens and businesses in an attempt to achieve unrealistic and damaging goals. At this point in time, when so much research is showing what an abject failure these policies are and how much they ruin economies, why not just abandon them completely?

In Canada’s case, another farcical element is that since Canada only represents 1.5 per cent of the world’s emissions, even if we met all of the targets we wouldn’t make a dent in global emissions. China, the largest emitter by far in the world, is currently given credit for making electric vehicles in manufacturing facilities powered by coal. It’s gotten laughable how ridiculous the climate thrust has become. Yet here in Canada, we still have a Liberal government that, while slightly tweaking various restrictive climate policies, still has the most damaging ones on the books to discourage investors, reduce economic growth and lower our standard of living. What is perhaps most amazing is that, despite the overwhelming weight of evidence, any Canadian still supports a government that promotes what is clearly a giant, expensive and harmful boondoggle.

12/12/2025

The Carney Liberal power grab
by Chris George

December 12, 2025 | 5 min read

This week’s deeply disturbing revelations in Ottawa suggest that Prime Minister Mark Carney has been covertly, methodically establishing a Big Brother State, where Carney and cabinet executive orders will be extended without parliamentary oversight or need of public disclosure, and where Canadians’ rights and freedoms can soon be curtailed and managed. The Carney Liberals are now executing an unprecedented power grab and, as in the procedural trick used with the budget’s omnibus legislation, they are acting deceptively, violating the spirit of Canada’s parliamentary democracy.

The cumulative effect of the bundle of new laws the Liberals are intent on enacting will establish a prime minister and cabinet members who are no longer accountable to parliament, with the power to selectively grant special privileges to some and to selectively apply an extended hand of the law to others. This plan would be unfolding as devised were it not for the dogged questioning from a handful of acute opposition MPs and one alarming discovery by Toronto Star national columnist and CBC “At Issue” panelist Althia Raj.

On Dec. 6 the Toronto Star featured what has turned out to be a bombshell news item for parliamentarians. Raj concisely described the Liberals’ deceitful sleight of hand maneuver with Bill C-15, their budget legislation, in her news article, “Mark Carney is quietly giving sweeping new powers to his ministers.”

“Hidden in the federal government’s 634-page omnibus bill C-15, the Budget Implementation Act, is a measure that has so far escaped scrutiny. Under the pretext of regulatory efficiency, Prime Minister Mark Carney plans to grant cabinet ministers the power to exempt any individual or company from any federal law on the books — except for the Criminal Code — for up to six years.
The measure wasn’t included in the version of the Liberals’ Nov. 4 budget that was given to reporters. It was not discussed in the government’s speeches in Parliament about this bill. No opposition party aside from the Bloc Québécois seems to have noticed it was there until the Star pointed it out.”

Raj provided the Treasury Board Secretariat’s explanation that the measures are necessary to establish “regulatory sandboxes” where companies and individuals can operate outside Canada’s established regulatory regime – and this special status in the Liberals’ sandbox is to be granted confidentially by ministerial decree without the knowledge of parliament or the public for up to six years.

This shield of confidentiality is also granted to ministers’ actions – at the minister’s own self-discretion. So, for example, recall those extraordinary actions taken by the minister of finance in 2022 to freeze individuals’ bank accounts; with this new power, the government could take action against individuals without accountability to parliament or public disclosure. Think SNC-Lavalin, We Charity, and the ArriveCan app scandals, all which would have been kept hidden from parliament and the public for six years.

In the ethics committee this week, it was learned that Bill C-15 also shields ministers from wrongdoing and from revealing any of their own conflicts of interest. In a tense exchange between Conservative MP Michael Barrett and federal ethics commissioner Konrad von Finckenstein, the MP asserted that the legislation is “a path for ministers to bypass the usual parliamentary safeguards and ethical scrutiny by shifting decisions into private exemption orders.” Finckenstein responded that he had not looked at the legislation from “that particular aspect.” Barrett stated, “there’s no reason for a government to put forward legislation that gives them the opportunity to exempt themselves from all laws except the Criminal Code. I think that Canadians should be rightly concerned, and I certainly am.”

Leslyn Lewis, Conservative MP for Haldimand-Norfolk, is one MP who has been effective in raising awareness to the Liberals’ systematic undermining of national sovereignty, Canadians’ civil liberties and, as is the case with Bill C-15, the authority of parliament. In responding to Raj’s Toronto Star investigative work, posting on X, Lewis placed the Liberals’ recent wily attempt to hoodwink parliamentarians into context of the Liberals’ broader clandestine efforts to subvert parliament and override the country’s laws and democratic conventions.

“The Budget Implementation Act gives ministers the power to exempt specific persons, companies, or projects from being bound by all Acts of Parliament, with the exception of the Criminal Code. This change would make them literally above the law.

What concerns me is that this is not new.

Since Carney became Prime Minister, this has been happening sector by sector.

I have flagged this before in all these bills:

Bill C-2 centralizes discretion in border control, information-sharing, and enforcement, reducing the role of courts through administrative decision-making.

Bill C-5 consolidates federal override authority in economic and infrastructure matters, limiting external adjudication once projects are designated.

Bill C-8 allows ministers to direct telecom providers to suspend services or disable equipment by order, without a clearly defined appeal process.

Bill C-9 redefines hate, exposing pastors and faith leaders to potential legal action for preaching traditional beliefs, with decisions driven by ministers.

Bill C-10 reorganizes modern treaty implementation by shifting oversight and administration away from courts and to the government’s ministers.

Each bill focuses power within a specific sector.

Bill C-15 does something even broader. It generalizes this model across government.

Now is the time for Canadians to start asking questions.”

As Bill C-15 passed second reading and is now referred to a MPs finance committee, the Liberals are attempting to push their new hate legislation, Bill C-9, through the justice committee with a side deal with Bloc MPs. The Liberals have agreed to remove religious speech defence from the Criminal Code, which will place Canadians in a position of being criminally prosecuted for hate speech when expressing their religious beliefs or citing religious texts that might be deemed offensive by an individual or group.

Bill C-9 has been controversial with Canadian civil liberty groups who viewed the legislative wording too vague, and expert testimony warned MPs that with the legislation broadening the definition of hate would open the door for the hate law to be weaponized against peaceful protests and legitimate dissent. As Lewis posits above, this hate law is part of a larger design to introduce a new censorship regime, and C-9 is that piece of the puzzle that will censor Canadians’ religious freedoms.

Reacting to the Liberal-Bloc deal, Conservative MP Melissa Lantsman made this observation on X: “Deeply troubling. Bill C-9 lowers the bar for ‘hatred,’ strips out the safeguards that prevent political prosecutions, invents a new hate offence that can turn minor slip-ups into major crimes, bans symbols instead of confronting real hate, and NOW puts sincere religious discourse in the crosshairs. This isn’t about safety, it’s about control. And it will hurt the very communities it claims to protect. Pathetic when communities are led to believe we have a law problem when the problem is an utter lack of enforcement on real hate.”

Justice Minister Sean Fraser has repeatedly claimed that freedom of religion in Canada will not be impacted by the removal of a religious defence and the enactment of the new hate speech measures. However, the civil liberties and religious groups find no solace in the minister’s reassurances. It would take but one minister in the future to change what is defined as hateful. There is a high probability for that to happen if you consider the recent testimony of culture minister Marc Miller before the justice committee when he was there to comment on hate speech. Miller used passages of the Bible to illustrate that religious texts contain statements that are hateful and should be subject to the criminal penalties of the new law.

Derek Ross, of the Christian Legal Fellowship, also appearing before the committee, addressed the minister’s comments, “I don’t know that I would agree with that characterization, Mr. Chair, that passages are categorically hateful, especially not passages in the Bible. If members of Parliament are of the view that passages of the Bible are hateful, that’s something that Canadians should be aware of.”

As a parting comment on what is unfolding in Ottawa, much of it with little to no public attention, it is best to repeat Lewis’s stark warning: “Now is the time for Canadians to start asking questions.”

11/02/2025

Ford makes second campaign stop in Niagara
by Nick Redekop

February 11, 2025 | 2 min read

Ford made an appearance with local candidates in Niagara-on-the-Lake.

On Saturday, Feb. 8, Ontario Premier Doug Ford returned to Niagara for the second visit of his re-election campaign.

Ford made an appearance in the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake, where he announced new investments aimed at securing Ontario’s borders and enhancing safety for municipalities across the province.

“With President Trump’s tariff threats continuing to loom over Ontario workers and businesses, and fentanyl continuing to hurt too many families and communities, we need to take real tangible action to protect our borders and communities,” Ford said at a media availability.

Trump has been threatening painful tariffs on Canadian exports to the United States until he deems that Canada has taken the necessary steps to address illegal migration and drug trafficking across the Canada-U.S. border.

Ford said that upon re-election, he will provide $50 million to expand the Joint-Air Support Unit of the Ontario Provincial Police. This investment will help to provide two new H-135 helicopters to assist the Windsor Police Service and Niagara Regional Police in patrolling and securing border entry points.

Ford is also advising the federal government to enact even stricter protocols that prioritize border security, including instituting mandatory minimum sentencing for those convicted of drug trafficking.

“Any thug convicted of destroying communities like that, they need to be locked up for a long, long time,” said Ford.

Ford was accompanied by a number of local officials, including Niagara Falls Progressive Conservative candidate Ruth-Ann Nieuwesteeg, Niagara Falls Mayor Jim Diodati, Niagara-on-the-Lake Lord Mayor Gary Zalepa and Deputy Lord Mayor Erwin Wiens, as well as Niagara Falls City Councillor Mona Patel.

At the announcement, Ford was formally endorsed by Wiens for a third term. Wiens was the latest municipal leader to back Ford, who has also received local support from Diodati, as well as St. Catharines Mayor Mat Siscoe and Welland Mayor Frank Campion.

“I just want to come forward, and from the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake, as the Deputy Lord Mayor, I want to endorse the Premier in this election, and we look forward to working with him.”

In addition to sharing border security initiatives, Ford also announced that the province will invest $35 million to help cover essential upgrades to the Royal George Theatre, a key part of Niagara-on-the-Lake’s Shaw Festival.

Niagara is home to three swing ridings which are currently occupied by NDP incumbents but are seen as potential gains for Ford’s Progressive Conservatives.

The provincial election will take place on Feb. 27.

22/10/2024

Time to end supply management
by Catherine Swift

However this most recent drama plays out, supply management should be eliminated by the next federal government.

Once again, the ridiculous policy of supply management is garnering headlines because the Bloc Quebecois leader in the House of Commons, Yves-Francois Blanchet, is demanding that the Liberals enshrine this destructive policy by supporting a Bloc MP’s private member’s bill, C-282. This bill would exempt supply-managed agricultural sectors – namely dairy, poultry and eggs – from any future international trade negotiations.

Supply management was established in the 1970s following a period of price volatility in the dairy, poultry and egg industries. The system was justified by claiming to be a means of ensuring a fair return to farmers and security of supply, safety of supply and price stability to consumers. The policy consists of imposing quotas on farmers so that supply remains at a certain level and restricting imports from outside of Canada so that domestic producers are protected from foreign competition.

The overarching result of supply management has been to enrich farmers who produce these commodities while imposing higher prices on consumers than would prevail if market competition was permitted. As in all industries that force quotas of one sort or another, the system has also created a market for “quota” of the various affected products so that a new entrant into the industry is forced to ante up a considerable amount of money to purchase “quota” so that they can legally operate. One would maybe expect to find such a rigid, restrictive and problematic system in a communist country, not Canada.

Not surprisingly, supply management has had some perverse results as any policy that messes with basic market economics always does. Recently, a research study was published that showed between 6.8 billion and 10 billion litres of milk was discarded on dairy farms in Canada over the period from 2012 to 2024, with an approximate value of almost $15 billion. This study found that the amount of milk dumped accounted for about 7 per cent of all milk produced during that time. This not only represents a considerable waste of the land and water resources needed to produce all that milk, but also means that Canadians could be enjoying improved nutrition by consuming the wasted milk at a time when far too many Canadians rely on foodbanks, and it is estimated that about 20 per cent of Canadian households and two million children suffer from food insecurity.

As is often the case, the main impediment to getting rid of supply management is political. The lion’s share of Canada’s dairy industry is located in Quebec, so all the usual political implications of abolishing a policy that mostly benefits that province apply. The dairy lobby has also become very powerful – after all, those wealthy dairy and poultry farmers have lots of dough to throw around – and was famously credited with enabling Andrew Scheer to win the 2017 Conservative party leadership race. Maxime Bernier had been expected to prevail but had said he would get rid of supply management, causing the dairy lobby and its considerable resources to line up behind Scheer.

Now it’s the Bloc Quebecois trying to further tie the hands of future governments by making supply-managed sectors exempt from future trade agreements. As supply management is usually one of the key issues at play during trade negotiations, this is not a trivial demand. Bill C-282 was passed in the House of Commons last year with all parties foolishly voting in favour and has been sitting in the Senate ever since.

Thankfully, some senators are holding it up on the basis that it would restrict future negotiators of trade agreements, which is absolutely true. Blanchet has stated that the Senate has until Oct. 29 to approve the Bill, or he will vote to bring the Trudeau government down on a non-confidence motion. If so, it will likely be the first time the Bloc has done anything to benefit Canada, as it’s clear the vast majority of Canadians would dearly love to have a federal election.

However this most recent drama plays out, supply management should be eliminated by the next federal government. Other countries that had similar systems have done so in a fair way to the farmers affected by phasing it out over a number of years and providing other means of compensating them. The ostensible reasons for the policy being put in place initially were never true. Such a regime doesn’t apply to most food products, and we still have safe, sufficient, high-quality products at mostly competitive prices for food in Canada. At a time when food insecurity is rampant and food inflation is a problem, there couldn’t be a better opportunity to get rid of a policy that hurts most Canadians and rewards but a few. It would also free us up to take advantage of more wins for Canada in international trade negotiations. If nothing else, there would be no more reason to cry over spilt milk.

17/09/2024

Union bosses show naked contempt for parents
by Lee Harding

September 17, 2024 | 3 min read

Too many union leaders want to disciple school children with Cultural Marxist values.

It’s September and children are back to school. Fall has also renewed parental and citizen concerns over the s*xualization of children in teaching and books with values contrary to those taught in their homes.

Another 1 Million March for Children is being held across Canada Sept. 20, one year after the first one. The initial 2023 event brought out hundreds of thousands in no small statement.

If there was any doubt the agenda parents protested was real, it was made apparent in the counter-protests organized by unions. A leaked zoom call with representatives of the Ontario Federation of Labour (OFL), Canadian Labour Congress (CLC), and Canadian Union of Public Employees, still available on Vimeo, shows they have no esteem nor place for the wishes of parents who want schools to teach literacy, math, and science, not gender ideology.

Patti Coates, then OFL president, expressed concern about the 22 events in Ontario in alignment with the march, calling it “the rise of hate.” OFL director of women’s rights Chandra-Li Paul called the marchers “far right” and “hate mongers,” saying their coordinated activism was “really scary.”

How ironic such ideologues call those who disagree with them “phobes” of various kinds, smearing them as those misguided by irrational fears. Then, having falsely stereotyped them all, the leftist ideologues confess their own fears of them, suddenly making fear a right and justifiable thing.

OFL Director of Human Rights Yolana B’Dacy said, “As allies we need to come together and say enough is enough. We’re not going to tolerate the hate, the intolerance or the indoctrination, any form in any camp. We’re going to organize and we’re going to have rapid response teams ready to combat this hate. And we all need to be co-conspirators in the community.”

The statement was a tacit admission that the unions were, in fact, indoctrinating in the schools, and they would not tolerate any other. In the tradition of leftist philosopher Herbert Marcuse, their view of liberating tolerance was tolerance for everyone and everything the left did, and intolerance for anyone or anything their opponents did. Every part of this call demonstrated this tack over and over.

For example, Vicki Smallman, CLC’s director of human rights, said that thanks to an “emergency resolution,” they were organizing “flying squads” to counter the nationwide movement. In its initial meaning, a “flying squad” is a police force division rapidly deployed to stop a crime in progress. Now it’s unionists rallying to stop any opposition anywhere.

Scarborough educator-activist Riley Martin suggested mobilizing against a march for children adjacent to a school. “See if Toronto York Regional Labor Council could organize CUPE 4400 and the various teachers locals to go to those schools and get them shut down by the workers there,” he said.

Emily Quaile, a VP at CUPE 4600 in Ottawa, stereotyped the marchers with sweeping and negative terms. Were such things done to a certain race or s*x, the unions would have raised a loud furor.

“The Fascists are organizing in the streets,” said Quaile. “I’m a researcher at Carleton. And my focus is fascism in Canada. And the signs that I’ve seen that were rising that this is far more than just like a far-right transphobic protest. They are fundamentally racist. They’re fundamentally anti-union, they are fundamentally q***r and transphobic. And it’s just a matter of time before they come to us.”

Sorry, but was this the same group who complained the other side were fear-mongerers?

One local labour vice-president in the GTA, a school board employee to boot, said three of his children were transgender. Parents concerned that teaching transgender concepts at school did more to create transgender kids than protect children could not have felt assured. But the man (whose name we will withhold here), then called for intimidation against the marchers.

“We’ve got a couple of seasoned activists who have already said that they’re willing to go over and take some pictures of license plates and tape…Make sure that they know that they’re being watched,” he said. This school board employee also called for the union side to occupy the planned rally space early and pre-empt the event with their own.

Hello? Aren’t these the same people calling for an end to bullying?

It was unclear who the next speaker was (he was introduced as something like “Monib.”) Remarkably, he warned to guard against the tactic they had just advocated. “We’ve seen that with a lot of fascist, white supremist organizations and groups that have been doxxing,” he said.

Did he realize that the 1 Million March for Children was spearheaded by Kamel El-Cheikh, a Muslim who could hardly be called a “white supremist”?

One speaker on the call said with enough resistance and counter-protests, the marchers would become fewer in number and stay home. On Sept. 20, we’ll find out. One thing is clear, however. Too many union leaders want to disciple school children with Cultural Marxist values and reward those in their way, including parents, as an enemy to disparage, cancel, and smear.

Address


Opening Hours

Monday 08:15 - 12:00
Tuesday 08:15 - 12:00
Wednesday 08:15 - 12:00
Thursday 08:15 - 12:00
Friday 08:15 - 12:00

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Passenger Freighter Travel posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

  • Want your business to be the top-listed Transport Service?

Share