Connect with us

National

Fleecing the Electorate: Timeline of a Campaign Built on Fear

Published

10 minute read

A crisis too perfect to be true was amplified with Trudeau’s hot mic and Bob Rae’s Arctic map, planting the seeds of fear at just the right time.

The evidence is now clear. In the 2025 Canadian federal election, the Trudeau Liberals—under new leader Mark Carney—knowingly amplified a far-fetched threat of American annexation to frame the race as a battle for national survival. Voters were told that Donald Trump wanted to “break and own” Canada. What they weren’t told was that Carney had privately reassured Trump that his heated stump speech rhetoric was just for show.

If it weren’t so chilling, it might read as farce—poorly acted political theatre at the highest level.

A few events, in retrospect, appear as the keystones of what may have been a coordinated, disinformation-driven campaign. A campaign, with the benefit of hindsight, that dovetailed precisely with Chinese intelligence narratives.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, days before stepping down and apparently ‘feathering a pass’ to Mark Carney—a hockey metaphor that never surfaced in the subsequent ‘elbows up’ campaign—appeared at a Toronto business summit and, conveniently, was caught on a “hot mic.” He warned, in casual tones, that Donald Trump “very much” wanted Canada’s resources, and that “absorbing our country” was “a real thing.” The timing was surgical.

Equally suspicious was Canada’s UN Ambassador and long-time Liberal heavyweight Bob Rae posting a distorted Arctic map on X, showing Canada and Greenland fully swallowed by a U.S. flag. His caption: “Theft by force.”

The narrative had been cast: the United States was preparing to take Canada. The Liberals would defend the nation. And anyone who doubted that premise was complicit in national surrender.

It began with an offhand comment at Mar-a-Lago in late 2024—Trump joking that if Canada couldn’t meet its defense commitments, perhaps it should become the 51st state. By January, the joke had mutated into a real threat: Trump threatened 25% tariffs on Canadian goods and linked them to Canada’s failure to secure its borders. The Liberals seized on the moment.

Then came the hot mic leak.

In February, Prime Minister Trudeau, in a supposedly closed-door session, was caught warning that Trump’s “annexation” ambitions were “a real thing.” The remark was conveniently on-message, almost too perfectly timed as Carney prepared to take the reins. By March, with Trump’s tariffs in force and sovereignty rhetoric rising, B.C. Premier David Eby declared Trump was “campaigning against Canada’s independence.”

On March 15, Bob Rae posted his now-infamous map depicting Canada fully absorbed into the U.S. It wasn’t just visual. His accompanying tweet read:

“To emphasize, this is not about borders, or fentanyl. This is about a colossal land, water and resource grab. The tariffs are intended to weaken so this theft can take place. We’re not talking ‘purchase’ or ‘buying’. We’re talking theft by force. Fighting back will be hard, but it is the fight of our lives.”

Rae, a senior diplomat, had crossed the line into domestic campaign messaging. And it aligned perfectly with the pitch Carney was about to make.

Carney, newly installed as prime minister, wasted no time launching the “Elbows Up” campaign—framing the Liberals as the last line of defense against American imperialism. At every rally, Trump was the villain. Carney told Canadians, “We are in a fight for our country.”

Apparently, Beijing was too.

On April 7, 2025, the Security and Intelligence Threats to Elections (SITE) Task Force reported that Chinese state-affiliated accounts on WeChat had launched a coordinated “information operation” targeting the Canadian election. These accounts consistently amplified narratives portraying Carney as a principled defender of Canadian sovereignty against Trump’s alleged annexation ambitions. The operation, linked to the Chinese Communist Party’s Central Political and Legal Affairs Commission, was assessed to have likely influenced Chinese-Canadian communities in key ridings—potentially swaying votes.

Meanwhile, just days after Carney’s incendiary rhetoric began, he engaged in a private call with President Trump. According to CBC reporting, Trump once again raised the 51st-state concept. Carney made no mention of it in the official government readout. Only after CBC brought the issue to light did he publicly acknowledge that the annexation idea had, in fact, been raised.

Notably, this disclosure appeared to give new momentum to the Liberal campaign’s annexation narrative—despite indications that Trump had begun moderating his tone. What CBC’s report did not include, however—if one accepts as credible a subsequent account from National Post columnist John Ivison—was arguably more consequential. Ivison reported that during the same call, Carney assured Trump that the anti-Trump messaging was a strategic necessity, not a personal indictment, and further characterized Trump as a “transformational” leader. In public, Carney framed Trump as a direct threat to Canadian sovereignty. In private, according to this reporting, he extended praise.

The contrast was cemented after the vote.

On April 28, the Liberals secured a strong minority government. Carney celebrated by declaring, “Donald Trump wants to break us, so that America can own us.” But less than a week later, standing beside Trump in the Oval Office, Carney dropped the defiance. He called Trump “transformational,” credited him for tackling fentanyl, and pledged Canada would be a good partner. By mid-May, he confirmed Canada was in talks to join Trump’s “Golden Dome” missile shield.

Notably, the region invoked by Bob Rae’s tweet—the Arctic and Canadian North—sits squarely within the strategic focus of that same U.S. missile defense system. On May 21, China’s foreign ministry lashed out at the Golden Dome project, calling it a threat and urging Washington to abandon it. The Liberal campaign had warned Canadians of U.S. ambitions to seize Canadian land and militarize the Arctic—yet Carney now aligns with the very policy China condemns most. The contradiction is stark, and telling.

The question isn’t whether Trump’s actions posed a real challenge to Canada. His tariffs and rhetoric were aggressive and unprecedented. The question is whether the Carney Liberals exaggerated that threat, weaponized fear, and manipulated public sentiment to win an election—only to reverse course immediately after.

If that’s the case, then a more unsettling question follows: can Mark Carney’s pledges—either to Donald Trump or to the Canadian people—be trusted going forward?

The Canadian people were told they were voting to protect sovereignty. In reality, they voted for a narrative. The real strategy—only visible now—was to create a crisis, stoke national anxiety, and cast Carney as a saviour.

Canada faces real threats: hostile state networks, aggressive election interference from Beijing, economic sabotage, and intellectual property theft. The take-down of Nortel by Huawei still resonates globally as a cautionary tale. Fentanyl trafficking from Canadian soil is rising. At the same time, there is growing consensus that Canada must finally unleash its vast natural resources to strengthen its geopolitical position. What matters now is not whether Mark Carney can win votes—but whether he can govern.

He campaigned on the word build. But we can’t become a superpower on a foundation of disillusionment and trickery.

A cohesive, powerful, unified Canada must be built on clarity. Only fools build on foundations of shifting sand.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Invite your friends and earn rewards

If you enjoy The Bureau, share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.

Invite Friends

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Addictions

News For Those Who Think Drug Criminalization Is Racist. Minorities Disagree

Published on

A Canadian poll finds that racial minorities don’t believe drug enforcement is bigoted.

By Adam Zivo

[This article was originally published in City Journal, a public policy magazine and website published by the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research]

Is drug prohibition racist? Many left-wing institutions seem to think so. But their argument is historically illiterate—and it contradicts recent polling data, too, which show that minorities overwhelmingly reject that view.

Policies and laws are tools to establish order. Like any tool, they can be abused. The first drug laws in North America, dating back to the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, arguably fixated on opium as a legal pretext to harass Asian immigrants, for example. But no reasonable person would argue that laws against home invasion, murder, or theft are “racist” because they have been misapplied in past cases. Absent supporting evidence, leaping from “this tool is sometimes used in racist ways” to “this tool is essentially racist” is kindergarten-level reasoning.

Yet this is precisely what institutions and activist groups throughout the Western world have done. The Drug Policy Alliance, a U.S.-based organization, suggests that drug prohibition is rooted in “racism and fear.” Harm Reduction International, a British NGO, argues for legalization on the grounds that drug prohibition entrenches “racialized hierarchies, which were established under colonial control and continue to dominate today.” In Canada, where I live, the top public health official in British Columbia, our most drug-permissive province, released a pro-legalization report last summer claiming that prohibition is “based on a history of racism, white supremacy, paternalism, colonialism, classism and human rights violations.”

These claims ignore how drug prohibition has been and remains popular in many non-European societies. Sharia law has banned the use of mind-altering substances since the seventh century. When Indigenous leaders negotiated treaties with Canadian colonists in the late 1800s, they asked for “the exclusion of fire water (whiskey)” from their communities. That same century, China’s Qing Empire banned opium amid a national addiction crisis. “Opium is a poison, undermining our good customs and morality,” the Daoguang emperor wrote in an 1810 edict.

Today, Asian and Muslim jurisdictions impose much stiffer penalties on drug offenders than do Western nations. In countries like China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Singapore, and Thailand, addicts and traffickers are given lengthy prison sentences or executed. Meantime, in Canada and the United States, de facto decriminalization has left urban cores littered with syringes and shrouded in clouds of meth.

The anti-drug backlash building in North America appears to be spearheaded by racial minorities. When Chesa Boudin, San Francisco’s former district attorney, was recalled in 2022, support for his ouster was highest among Asian voters. Last fall, 73 percent of Latinos backed California’s Proposition 36, which heightened penalties for drug crimes, while only 58 percent of white respondents did.

In Canada, the first signs of a parallel trend emerged during Vancouver’s 2022 municipal election, where an apparent surge in Chinese Canadian support helped install a slate of pro-police candidates. Then, in British Columbia’s provincial election last autumn, nonwhite voters strongly preferred the BC Conservatives, who campaigned on stricter drug laws. And in last month’s federal election, within both Vancouver and Toronto’s metropolitan areas, tough-on-crime conservatives received considerable support from South Asian communities.

These are all strong indicators that racial minorities do not, in fact, universally favor drug legalization. But their small population share means there is relatively little polling data to measure their preferences. Since only 7.6 percent of Americans are Asian, for example, a poll of 1,000 randomly selected people will yield an average of only 76 Asian respondents—too small a sample from which to draw meaningful conclusions. You can overcome this barrier by commissioning very large polls, but that’s expensive.

Nonetheless, last autumn, the Centre for Responsible Drug Policy (a nonprofit I founded and operate) did just that. In partnership with the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, we contracted Mainstreet Research to ask over 12,000 British Columbians: “Do you agree or disagree that criminalizing drugs is racist?”

The results undermine progressives’ assumptions. Only 26 percent of nonwhite respondents agreed (either strongly or weakly) that drug criminalization is racist, while over twice as many (56 percent) disagreed. The share of nonwhite respondents who strongly disagreed was three times larger than the share that strongly agreed (43.2 percent versus 14.3 percent). These results are fairly conclusive for this jurisdiction, given the poll’s sample size of 2,233 nonwhite respondents and a margin of error of 2 percent.

Notably, Indigenous respondents seemed to be the most anti-drug ethnic group: only 20 percent agreed (weakly or strongly) with the “criminalization is racist” narrative, while 61 percent disagreed. Once again, those who disagreed were much more vehement than those who agreed. With a sample size of 399 respondents, the margin of error here (5 percent) is too small to confound these dramatic results.

We saw similar outcomes for other minority groups, such as South Asians, Southeast Asians, Latinos, and blacks. While Middle Eastern respondents also seemed to follow this trend, the poll included too few of them to draw definitive conclusions. Only East Asians were divided on the issue, though a clear majority still disagreed that criminalization is racist.

As this poll was limited to British Columbian respondents, our findings cannot necessarily be assumed to hold throughout Canada and the United States. But since the province is arguably the most drug-permissive jurisdiction within the two countries, these results could represent the ceiling of pro-drug, anti-criminalization attitudes among minority communities.

Legalization proponents and their progressive allies take pride in being “anti-racist.” Our polling, however, suggests that they are not listening to the communities they profess to care about.

 

Our content is always free – but if you want to help us commission more high-quality journalism,

please consider getting a voluntary paid subscription.

Continue Reading

Business

Carney’s cabinet likely means more of the same on energy and climate

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Prime Minister Carney recently unveiled his new cabinet, and he made some changes in some key policy areas including Energy and Natural Resources, Environment and Climate Change, and Transport and Internal Trade. What do these cabinet picks tell us about the potential policy focus of Carney’s government moving forward?

At the helm of the Energy and Natural Resource portfolio, Carney appointed Timothy Hodgson, a former banker and chair of Ontario’s massive Hydro One electricity utility. A quick search of Hodgson’s previous experience and opinions on matters of energy and natural resource policy comes up rather dry—he is something of a cypher. Acquaintances are quoted in several articles suggesting he has a pragmatic, pro-business orientation, but that is about all we can glean.

Still, what we do know is that Hodgson is replacing Jonathan Wilkinson, previously a supporter of highly aggressive greenhouse gas emission reductions, and aggressive regulation in the energy and natural resource policy spaces when part of Trudeau’s cabinet. So, with a mostly blank slate to stand on, and an ostensibly pragmatic “banker” mentality, we can expect (hope?) that Minister Hodgson blazes a less extreme path forward on energy and natural resource issues, balancing in a more even-handed fashion protection of the environment and natural resources with Canada’s need for economic productivity.

Hodgson’s partner on the energy, natural resource environmental policy front will be Julie Dabrusin, new Minister of Environment and Climate Change, replacing Uber-environmentalist Steven Guilbeault. Dabrusin was previously Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, and Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources in the Trudeau government. The most logical expectation would be to expect she will continue to champion Trudeau-esque policies, tempering any hopes we might have for the potentially more moderate Minister Hodgson as bellwether of Canada’s energy, natural resource and environmental policies.

Finally, Carney appointed Chrystia Freeland as Minister of Transport and Internal Trade. Freeland is a strong believer in the climate crisis, an intense regulator thereof, and seems to believe that transportation must be electrifiedpedalized and mass-transificated (okay, I made that last term up) to save the planet. So, anyone hoping for a move away from the green-transportation agenda, away from an all electric-car, mass-transit oriented future, and back to something favouring (or at least not-demonizing) an automobile-centric lifestyle might want to rein in their expectations.

Unfortunately, in Carney’s cavalcade of cabinet officials, he did not create a new Minister of Regulatory Reform and Right-Sizing (again, my term). One of Canada’s biggest public policy illnesses is its plague of regulations. Canada is drowning under a mountain of regulatory red-tape and badly needs a minister with scissors. Canada wants no part of a U.S.-style Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), but a Minister of Regulatory Reform and Right-Sizing, akin to what British Columbia had briefly in 2001, would be a policy tonic Canada needs badly.

Little is known about exactly where the bulk of Prime Minister Carney’s new cabinet will take us, but the safe betting—in areas of environment, natural resources, climate change and transportation—is that we’re likely to see a continuance of Trudeau-era policies, though promulgated by somewhat more bland less-obviously-zealous eco-warriors. Time will tell.

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Trending

X