Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

National

Majority of Canadians want feds to focus on illegal gun smuggling not gun buyback program

Published

3 minute read

By Gage Haubrich

The National Police Federation, the union representing the RCMP, says Ottawa’s buyback “diverts extremely important personnel, resources, and funding away from addressing the more immediate and growing threat of criminal use of illegal firearms.”

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation released new Leger polling showing 55 per cent of Canadians think that stopping illegal gun smuggling is the most effective way to reduce gun crime.

“The poll shows that Canadians know the real problem is illegal gun smuggling, not firearms owned by licenced Canadian gun owners,” said Gage Haubrich, CTF Prairie Director. “Planning to spend potentially billions of dollars on a program that Canadians don’t think is effective is a waste of money.

“Law-enforcement experts are telling Ottawa to focus on smugglers instead of licenced gun owners and this poll shows Canadians agree with that commonsense reality.”

The federal government originally announced the gun ban and buyback scheme in 2020. The government has started collecting firearms from businesses, but the government has not yet taken a single gun from individual Canadian gun owners.

The Leger poll asked Canadians what they think is the most effective way to reduce gun crime. Results of the poll show:

  • 55 per cent say introducing tougher measures to stop the illegal smuggling of guns into Canada from the United States is most effective.
  • 26 per cent say banning the sale and ownership of many different makes and models of guns as well as using a government buyback program is the most effective.
  • Eight per cent say neither of these options.
  • 11 per cent don’t know.

These results echo what police organizations have been saying for years.

The National Police Federation, the union representing the RCMP, says Ottawa’s buyback “diverts extremely important personnel, resources, and funding away from addressing the more immediate and growing threat of criminal use of illegal firearms.”

“There is no evidence that gun bans are effective in reducing this violence, particularly when 85 per cent of guns seized by our members can be traced back to the United States,” said the Toronto Police Association.

The government said the buyback program would cost taxpayers $200 million in 2019. Just buying back the guns, not including administrative costs, could cost up to $756 million, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Since then, the government has banned hundreds of other models of firearms as well as accessories, increasing the potential cost to taxpayers.

Prime Minister Mark Carney has promised to “reinvigorate the implementation” of Ottawa’s gun ban and buyback program.

“Ordinary Canadians and the experts both know this policy isn’t going to make anyone safer so the government needs to stop wasting money on this scheme,” Haubrich said. “It’s time to listen to Canadians and scrap the gun ban and buyback.”

National

Democracy Watch Blows the Whistle on Carney’s Ethics Sham

Published on

The Opposition with Dan Knight

Dan Knight's avatar Dan Knight

Watchdog Group Exposes “Loophole-Filled, Unethical Smokescreens” in Prime Minister’s Blind Trust and Conflict Screen, Calls for Full Divestment

So here’s something the media doesn’t want to talk about because it shatters the entire illusion they’ve built around the man they now call Prime Minister: Mark Carney. The technocratic savior, the former banker with all the right globalist credentials, the guy who jets between Davos and Ottawa with a PowerPoint and a carbon tax. And yet, today buried under polite headlines and careful euphemisms a watchdog group in Canada finally said what should’ve been obvious to anyone paying attention.

Mark Carney’s ethics screen and his so-called “blind trust” are scams. Period.

That’s not hyperbole. That’s from Democracy Watch, one of the last remaining ethics organizations in the country that hasn’t been swallowed by the federal funding machine or bullied into silence by the PMO. In a statement released this week, they laid out—point by point—how Carney’s financial arrangement is not just flawed, but a “loophole-filled, unethical smokescreen.” Their words. And they’re right.

Let’s go through it.

Carney, who now controls the federal government, holds investments in over 550 companies. Five hundred and fifty. That includes stock options in Brookfield Asset Management, where he used to be vice-chair, and a major stake in Stripe, the Silicon Valley payment processor. Yet we’re told, by government and press alike, that all is well because he’s placed these assets in a “blind trust.” Sounds reassuring, doesn’t it?

But here’s the problem. It’s not blind. Not even close.

According to Democracy Watch, Carney knows exactly what’s in that trust. Why? Because he put the assets in himself, he chose his own trustee, and he was allowed to instruct the trustee not to sell anything. Read that again. He told the trustee: keep my investments intact. And that trustee? Free to give him updates.

So, what part of this is blind?

The answer is: none of it. And it gets worse. Carney holds stock options in Brookfield Corporation and Brookfield Asset Management—options that he cannot sell for years. Which means even if he wanted to claim ignorance, he can’t. He knows he owns them. Everyone knows he owns them. And now he’s making policy decisions that shape the very industries those companies operate in—climate policy, tech investment, financial regulation, you name it.

Let’s call this what it is. It’s a conflict of interest so massive it makes Justin Trudeau’s WE Charity scandal look like a lemonade stand. And yet, this isn’t even the worst part.

Carney’s ethics screen, the list of 103 companies he’s supposedly recused from dealing with—doesn’t cover the full 550+. It only applies to a fraction. But even among those 103, the federal Conflict of Interest Act contains a loophole so big you could drive a solar-powered Brookfield wind turbine through it.

It’s called the “general application” exemption. Under this clause, public office holders like, say, the Prime Minister; can fully participate in decisions that impact industries or economic sectors as a whole, so long as those decisions aren’t “targeted” at a specific company. So if Carney signs off on a $10 billion green tech fund that pumps value into Brookfield’s renewables portfolio? That’s legal. Because it’s general.

In fact, according to Democracy Watch, that loophole applies to “99% of the decisions” cabinet ministers make. So despite having personal investments tied to hundreds of companies, Carney can still sit in meetings, shape policy, and direct subsidies that increase the value of his trust, without technically breaking the rules.

Lets call this what it is, this is legalized insider dealing.

And remember this: every time a public official recuses themselves, they’re supposed to make a public declaration. That’s the law under Section 25(1) of the Conflict of Interest Act. But former Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson—remember her?—helped invent a system of “ethics screens” that lets politicians bypass that requirement.

Set up a screen, tell the public you’re recused from everything, then quietly participate in decisions behind closed doors. No disclosure. No accountability. No paper trail.

Justice Parker, way back in 1987, warned us about this. In his landmark commission on conflicts of interest, he recommended banning blind trusts outright and requiring all top officials to sell their private investments. Why? Because it’s the only way to guarantee integrity. You cannot serve the public while holding shares in private companies that rise or fall based on your decisions. Period.

And yet here we are. The new Prime Minister. Over 550 investments. A fake blind trust. A self-policed ethics screen. And a legal loophole so wide open, it makes lobbying look quaint.

Now here’s the part no one will say out loud: this system is designed to be abused. It’s not broken. It’s working exactly as intended. The people writing the rules are the same ones benefiting from them. And Carney? He’s not breaking norms—he is the norm.

Democracy Watch is right. The only solution is for Carney to sell his investments, including his Brookfield stock options. End the charade. Choose public service over private profit. But he won’t. And the reason is simple: the swamp doesn’t drain itself.

This isn’t transparency. This isn’t accountability. This is how the ruling class launders power through legal technicalities, and then has the audacity to lecture you about ethics.

And if you still believe that a man who used to run a trillion-dollar fund, who sits on hundreds of corporate stakes, who appointed his own ethics babysitter and told them not to sell anything—that this man is governing in your interest?

Then I’ve got a “blind” trust to sell you.

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Fraser Institute

Democracy waning in Canada due to federal policies

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Lydia Miljan

In How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt argue that while some democracies collapse due to external threats, many more self-destruct from within. Democratic backsliding often occurs not through dramatic coups but through the gradual erosion of institutions by elected leaders—presidents or prime ministers—who subvert the very system that brought them to power. Sometimes this process is swift, as in Germany in 1933, but more often it unfolds slowly and almost imperceptibly.

The book was written during Donald Trump’s first presidential term, when the authors expressed concern about his disregard for democratic norms. Drawing on Juan Linz’s 1978 work The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes, Levitsky and Ziblatt identified several warning signs of democratic decline in Trump’s leadership: rejection of democratic rules, denial of the legitimacy of political opponents, tolerance or encouragement of violence, and a willingness to restrict dissent including criticism from the media.

While Trump is an easy target for such critiques, Levitsky and Ziblatt’s broader thesis is that no democracy is immune to these threats. Could Canada be at risk of democratic decline? In light of developments over the past decade, perhaps.

Consider, for example, the state of free speech and government criticism. The previous Liberal government under Justin Trudeau was notably effective at cultivating a favourable media environment. Following the 2015 election, the media enjoyed a prolonged honeymoon period, often focusing on the prime minister’s image and “sunny ways.” After the 2019 election, which resulted in a minority government, the strategy shifted toward direct financial support. Citing pandemic-related revenue losses, the government introduced “temporary” subsidies for media organizations. These programs have since become permanent and costly, with $325 million allocated for 2024/25. During the 2025 election campaign, Mark Carney pledged to increase this by an additional $150 million.

Beyond the sheer scale of these subsidies, there’s growing concern that legacy media outlets—now financially dependent on government support—may struggle to maintain objectivity, particularly during national elections. This dependency risks undermining the media’s role as a watchdog of democracy.

Second, on April 27, 2023, the Trudeau government passed Bill C-11, an update to the Broadcasting Act that extends CRTC regulation to digital content. While individual social media users and podcasters are technically exempt, the law allows the CRTC to regulate platforms that host content from traditional broadcasters and streaming services—raising concerns about indirect censorship. This move further restricted freedom of speech in Canada.

Third, the government’s invocation of the Emergencies Act to end the Freedom Convoy protest in Ottawa was ruled unconstitutional by Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley who found that the government had not met the legal threshold for such extraordinary powers. The same day of the ruling the government announced it would appeal the 200-page decision, doubling down on its justification for invoking the Act.

In addition to these concerns, federal government program spending has grown significantly—from 12.8 per cent of GDP in 2014/15 to a projected 16.2 per cent in 2023/24—indicating that the government is consuming an increasing share of the country’s resources.

Finally, Bill C-5, the One Canadian Economy Act, which became law on June 26, grants the federal cabinet—and effectively the prime minister—the power to override existing laws and regulations for projects deemed in the “national interest.” The bill’s vague language leaves the definition of “national interest” open to broad interpretation, giving the executive branch unprecedented authority to micromanage major projects.

Individually, these developments may appear justifiable or benign. Taken together, they suggest a troubling pattern—a gradual erosion of democratic norms and institutions in Canada.

Lydia Miljan

Professor of Political Science, University of Windsor
Continue Reading

Trending

X