National
Fleecing the Electorate: Timeline of a Campaign Built on Fear

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
Business
Most Canadians say retaliatory tariffs on American goods contribute to raising the price of essential goods at home

- 77 per cent say Canada’s tariffs on U.S. products increase the price of consumer goods
- 72 per cent say that their current tax bill hurts their standard of living
A new MEI-Ipsos poll published this morning reveals a clear disconnect between Ottawa’s high-tax, high-spending approach and Canadians’ level of satisfaction.
“Canadians are not on board with Ottawa’s fiscal path,” says Samantha Dagres, communications manager at the MEI. “From housing to trade policy, Canadians feel they’re being squeezed by a government that is increasingly an impediment to their standard of living.”
More than half of Canadians (54 per cent) say Ottawa is spending too much, while only six per cent think it is spending too little.
A majority (54 per cent) also do not believe federal dollars are being effectively allocated to address Canada’s most important issues, and a similar proportion (55 per cent) are dissatisfied with the transparency and accountability in the government’s spending practices.
As for their own tax bills, Canadians are equally skeptical. Two-thirds (67 per cent) say they pay too much income tax, and about half say they do not receive good value in return.
Provincial governments fared even worse. A majority of Canadians say they receive poor value for the taxes they pay provincially. In Quebec, nearly two-thirds (64 per cent) of respondents say they are not getting their money’s worth from the provincial government.
Not coincidentally, Quebecers face the highest marginal tax rates in North America.
On the question of Canada’s response to the U.S. trade dispute, nearly eight in 10 Canadians (77 per cent) agree that Ottawa’s retaliatory tariffs on American products are driving up the cost of everyday goods.
“Canadians understand that tariffs are just another form of taxation, and that they are the ones footing the bill for any political posturing,” adds Ms. Dagres. “Ottawa should favour unilateral tariff reduction and increased trade with other nations, as opposed to retaliatory tariffs that heap more costs onto Canadian consumers and businesses.”
On the issue of housing, 74 per cent of respondents believe that taxes on new construction contribute directly to unaffordability.
All of this dissatisfaction culminates in 72 per cent of Canadians saying their overall tax burden is reducing their standard of living.
“Taxpayers are not just ATMs for government – and if they are going to pay such exorbitant taxes, you’d think the least they could expect is good service in return,” says Ms. Dagres. “Canadians are increasingly distrustful of a government that believes every problem can be solved with higher taxes.”
A sample of 1,020 Canadians 18 years of age and older was polled between June 17 and 23, 2025. The results are accurate to within ± 3.8 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
The results of the MEI-Ipsos poll are available here.
* * *
The MEI is an independent public policy think tank with offices in Montreal, Ottawa, and Calgary. Through its publications, media appearances, and advisory services to policymakers, the MEI stimulates public policy debate and reforms based on sound economics and entrepreneurship.
Business
B.C. premier wants a private pipeline—here’s how you make that happen

From the Fraser Institute
By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari
At the federal level, the Carney government should scrap several Trudeau-era policies including Bill C-69 (which introduced vague criteria into energy project assessments including the effects on the “intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors”)
The Eby government has left the door (slightly) open to Alberta’s proposed pipeline to the British Columbia’s northern coast. Premier David Eby said he isn’t opposed to a new pipeline that would expand access to Asian markets—but he does not want government to pay for it. That’s a fair condition. But to attract private investment for pipelines and other projects, both the Eby government and the Carney government must reform the regulatory environment.
First, some background.
Trump’s tariffs against Canadian products underscore the risks of heavily relying on the United States as the primary destination for our oil and gas—Canada’s main exports. In 2024, nearly 96 per cent of oil exports and virtually all natural gas exports went to our southern neighbour. Clearly, Canada must diversify our energy export markets. Expanded pipelines to transport oil and gas, mostly produced in the Prairies, to coastal terminals would allow Canada’s energy sector to find new customers in Asia and Europe and become less reliant on the U.S. In fact, following the completion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion between Alberta and B.C. in May 2024, exports to non-U.S. destinations increased by almost 60 per cent.
However, Canada’s uncompetitive regulatory environment continues to create uncertainty and deter investment in the energy sector. According to a 2023 survey of oil and gas investors, 68 per cent of respondents said uncertainty over environmental regulations deters investment in Canada compared to only 41 per cent of respondents for the U.S. And 59 per cent said the cost of regulatory compliance deters investment compared to 42 per cent in the U.S.
When looking at B.C. specifically, investor perceptions are even worse. Nearly 93 per cent of respondents for the province said uncertainty over environmental regulations deters investment while 92 per cent of respondents said uncertainty over protected lands deters investment. Among all Canadian jurisdictions included in the survey, investors said B.C. has the greatest barriers to investment.
How can policymakers help make B.C. more attractive to investment?
At the federal level, the Carney government should scrap several Trudeau-era policies including Bill C-69 (which introduced vague criteria into energy project assessments including the effects on the “intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors”), Bill C-48 (which effectively banned large oil tankers off B.C.’s northern coast, limiting access to Asian markets), and the proposed cap on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the oil and gas sector (which will likely lead to a reduction in oil and gas production, decreasing the need for new infrastructure and, in turn, deterring investment in the energy sector).
At the provincial level, the Eby government should abandon its latest GHG reduction targets, which discourage investment in the energy sector. Indeed, in 2023 provincial regulators rejected a proposal from FortisBC, the province’s main natural gas provider, because it did not align with the Eby government’s emission-reduction targets.
Premier Eby is right—private investment should develop energy infrastructure. But to attract that investment, the province must have clear, predictable and competitive regulations, which balance environmental protection with the need for investment, jobs and widespread prosperity. To make B.C. and Canada a more appealing destination for investment, both federal and provincial governments must remove the regulatory barriers that keep capital away.
-
Bruce Dowbiggin2 days ago
The Covid 19 Disaster: When Do We Get The Apologies?
-
Crime1 day ago
Sweeping Boston Indictment Points to Vast Chinese Narco-Smuggling and Illegal Alien Labor Plot via Mexican Border
-
Alberta2 days ago
Alberta school boards required to meet new standards for school library materials with regard to sexual content
-
International20 hours ago
Support for the Ukraine war continues because no one elected is actually in charge.
-
Business20 hours ago
Trump slaps Brazil with tariffs over social media censorship
-
Environment1 day ago
EPA releases report on chemtrails, climate manipulation
-
Business23 hours ago
CBC six-figure salaries soar
-
Addictions22 hours ago
Can addiction be predicted—and prevented?