2025 Federal Election
RCMP Whistleblowers Accuse Members of Mark Carney’s Inner Circle of Security Breaches and Surveillance

Dan Knight
A serving RCMP sergeant and retired national security detective accuse Trudeau-era ministers—and now Mark Carney’s inner circle—of illegal surveillance and intelligence cover-ups
In a stunning open letter dated April 12, 2025 which allegations are unverified went viral yesterday, RCMP Sgt. Peter Merrifield and retired national security detective Paul McNamara have accused a slate of former and current Liberal cabinet ministers—including members of Mark Carney’s leadership circle—of allowing and covering up serious breaches of Canadian national security, the Charter of Rights, and the public trust.
The letter, addressed directly to Prime Minister Mark Carney, lays out explosive allegations supported, they say, by documentation and communications records. The authors are demanding Carney remove specific individuals from his campaign and inner circle to demonstrate that he will not inherit or excuse the Liberal Party’s pattern of evasion and abuse of power under Justin Trudeau.
“You are presenting your financial background as the requisite and relevant experience to lead a nation,” they write. “Perhaps it was your lack of political and government experience that saw you mishandle the extremely serious matter with your current Member of Parliament Paul Chiang.”
“He openly called for the abduction…”
The letter references former Liberal MP Paul Chiang, who stepped down in disgrace after it was revealed he told a Chinese-language audience that they could claim a $1 million bounty from the Chinese government by delivering Conservative candidate Joe Tay—a Canadian citizen—“to the Chinese Consulate in Toronto.”
Merrifield and McNamara did not mince words:
“MP Chiang not only acted without integrity as a Member of Parliament and former police officer, but he also openly called for the abduction and handover of a Canadian citizen and political opponent to a foreign country that the Liberal government has criticized for human rights violations.”
They go further, directly accusing Carney of failing his first major leadership test:
“This unparalleled action in Canadian history was your first public test as a leader… You hesitated and did not publicly demonstrate the recognition of the seriousness of the offence.”
9 Trudeau-Era Officials Named and Shamed
The letter then shifts to its most consequential section: a list of nine former and current ministers—some of whom now work in Carney’s office—who the authors accuse of either enabling, ignoring, or directly participating in unlawful actions.
Among the most damning claims:

- Marco Mendicino is accused of having “failed… to act in protecting Canadians abroad from potential arrest and detention,” and for permitting “breaches of law, breaches of process, and breaches of policy by both CSIS and the RCMP.”
- Dominic LeBlanc, they allege, “failed… to address breaches against Canadians with improper use of electronic spyware by CSIS and the RCMP,” including breaches “against Labour Unions.”
- Bill Blair is accused of “authorizing extreme powers for CSIS to undertake inappropriate actions against innocent Canadians,” and permitting violations of the Ministerial Directive on National Security Operations in Sensitive Sectors.
- Anita Anand allegedly “failed to intercede and address improper use of spyware by the RCMP against a Labour Union Executive during a period of collective bargaining and unfair labour practice filing.”
They also accuse Melanie Joly and Arif Virani of failing to act after the “public release of protected Section 38 National Security documents… without redaction,” which they claim exposed Canadian operatives and their families to retaliation from the Chinese state.
“These individuals now and forever have a target on their backs.”
Merrifield and McNamara claim these failures led to tangible threats against Canadians who were caught in the middle of international espionage between China and Canada.
“Several innocent Canadians have been placed at risk of direct retaliation by Chinese foreign intelligence… These innocent individuals now and forever have a target on their backs.”
They argue that had ministers acted when first informed in 2022, this exposure never would’ve happened.
The letter ends with a final challenge to Carney:
“If indeed you are presenting Canadians a choice of ‘something new’, then take action now rather than making election campaign promises to ‘look into it’ later.”
They tell Carney that surrounding himself with “the failed engineers of the past” will only prove that his leadership is a continuation—not a break—from the rot of the Trudeau years.
Who Are Merrifield and McNamara?
Peter Merrifield is a veteran RCMP sergeant who served on the executive board of the National Police Federation, the official RCMP union. He has previously filed lawsuits against the force for political retaliation and harassment. He alleges he was targeted by spyware (ODIT)—the same kind used to track terrorists—during union negotiations with the federal government.
Det. Paul McNamara (Ret.), a seasoned national security investigator, has worked with Merrifield for several years compiling documentary evidence of alleged abuses by CSIS and the RCMP. He co-authored the letter and claims they are in possession of “documents, communication records, and evidence” to back every charge.
Final word
So now the stakes are laid bare.
This election isn’t just about policy. It’s not about carbon taxes or housing slogans or who can shake the most hands in Brampton. It’s about whether Canada is still a country governed by the rule of law—or a decaying shell run by insiders, spooks, and bureaucrats who answer to no one.
Because Mark Carney has a choice: lead with integrity, or carry water for the same Liberal machine that gave us surveillance on union reps, CSIS interference, and national security scandals buried under layers of Ottawa spin.
And Canadians have a choice too.
If the allegations are true do we want more of the same? More willful blindness, more gaslighting, more foreign interference and media complicity dressed up as “safety and stability”?
Or are we finally ready to demand something different?
This election is a referendum on accountability. And for once, the line is crystal clear.
Choose wisely. Because this time, the country’s not going to survive on autopilot.
2025 Federal Election
Post election report indicates Canadian elections are becoming harder to secure

Chief Electoral Officer Stéphane Perrault highlights strong participation and secure voting, but admits minority politics, rising costs, and administrative pressures are testing the system’s limits.
Monday in Ottawa, Stéphane Perrault, Canada’s Chief Electoral Officer, delivered a long press conference on April’s federal election. It was supposed to be a victory lap, record turnout, record early voting, a secure process. But if you listened closely, you heard something else: an admission that Canada’s election machinery is faltering, stretched thin by a system politicians refuse to fix.
Perrault touted the highest turnout in 30 years, 69 percent of eligible voters, nearly 20 million Canadians. Almost half of those ballots were cast before election day, a dramatic shift in how citizens take part in democracy.
“Twenty years ago, less than 7% voted early. This year, nearly half did,” Perrault told reporters. “Our system may have reached its limit.”
That’s the core problem. The system was built for one decisive day, not weeks of advance voting spread across campuses, long-term care homes, mail-in ballots, and local Elections Canada offices. It’s no longer a single event; it’s an extended process that stretches the capacity of staff, polling locations, and administration.
Perrault admitted bluntly that the 36-day writ period, the time between when an election is called and when the vote happens, may no longer be workable. “If we don’t have a fixed date election, the current time frame does not allow for the kind of service preparations that is required,” he said.
And this is where politics collides with logistics. Canada is once again under a minority government, which means an election can be triggered at almost any moment. A non-confidence vote in the House of Commons, where opposition parties withdraw support from the government, can bring down Parliament in an instant. That’s not a flaw in the system; it’s how parliamentary democracy works. But it leaves Elections Canada on permanent standby, forced to prepare for a snap election without knowing when the writ will drop.
The result? Sixty percent of voter information cards were mailed late this year because Elections Canada couldn’t finalize leases for polling stations on time. Imagine that, more than half the country got their voting information delayed because the system is clogged. And that’s when everything is supposedly working.
The April election cost an estimated $570 million, almost identical to 2021 in today’s dollars. But here’s the kicker: Elections Canada also spent $203 million just to stay ready during three years of minority Parliament. That’s not democracy on the cheap. That’s bureaucracy on retainer.
Perrault admitted as much: “We had a much longer readiness period. That’s the reality of minority governments.”
No Foreign Interference… But Plenty of ‘Misinformation’
Canada’s top election official wanted to make something perfectly clear: “There were no acts of foreign interference targeting the administration of the electoral process.” That’s the line. And it’s a good one… reassuring, simple, the kind of phrase meant to make headlines and calm nerves.
But listen closely to the wording. He didn’t say there was no interference at all. He said none of it targeted the administration of the vote. Which raises the obvious question: what interference did occur, and who was behind it?
Perrault admitted there was “more volume than ever” of misinformation circulating during the 2025 election. He listed the greatest hits: rumors that Elections Canada gives voters pencils so ballots can be erased, or claims that non-citizens were voting. These are hardly new — they’ve appeared in the U.S. and in Europe too. The difference, he said, is scale. In 2025, Canadians saw those narratives across more channels, more platforms, more communities than ever before.
This is where things get interesting. Because the way Perrault framed it wasn’t that a rogue actor or a foreign intelligence service was pushing disinformation. He was blunt: this was a domestic problem as much as anything else. In his words, “whether foreign or not,” manipulation of information poses the “single biggest risk to our democracy.”
Perrault insists the real danger isn’t foreign hackers or ballot-stuffing but Canadians themselves, ordinary people raising questions online. “Information manipulation, whether foreign or not, poses the single biggest risk to our democracy,” he said.
Well, maybe he should look in the mirror. If Canadians are skeptical of the system, maybe it’s because the people running it haven’t done enough to earn their trust. It took years for Ottawa to even acknowledge the obvious , that foreign actors were meddling in our politics long before this election. Endless commissions and closed-door reports later, we’re told to stop asking questions and accept that everything is secure.
Meanwhile, what gets fast-tracked? Not a comprehensive fix to protect our democracy, but a criminal investigation into a journalist. Keean Bexte, co-founder of JUNO News, is facing prosecution under Section 91(1) of the Canada Elections Act for his reporting on allegations against Liberal candidate Thomas Keeper. The maximum penalty? A $50,000 fine and up to five years in prison. His reporting, incidentally, was sourced, corroborated, and so credible that the Liberal Party quietly dropped Keeper from its candidate list.
If people doubt the system, it isn’t because they’re gullible or “misinformed.” It’s because the government has treated transparency as an afterthought and accountability as an inconvenience. And Perrault knows it. Canadians aren’t children to be scolded for asking questions, they’re citizens who expect straight answers.
But instead of fixing the cracks in the system, Ottawa points the finger at the public. Instead of rebuilding trust, they prosecute journalists.
You don’t restore faith in democracy by threatening reporters with five years in prison. You do it by showing, quickly and openly, that elections are beyond reproach. Until then, spare us the lectures about “misinformation.” Canadians can see exactly where the problem lies, and it isn’t with them.
The Takeaway
Of course, they’re patting themselves on the back. Record turnout, no servers hacked, the trains ran mostly on time. Fine. But what they don’t want to admit is that the system barely held together. It was propped up by 230,000 temporary workers, leases signed at the last minute, and hundreds of millions spent just to keep the lights on. That’s not stability. That’s triage.
And then there’s the lecturing tone. Perrault tells us the real threat isn’t incompetence in Ottawa, it’s you, Canadians “sharing misinformation.” Excuse me? Canadians asking questions about their elections aren’t a threat to democracy, they are democracy. If the government can’t handle people poking holes in its story, maybe the problem isn’t the questions, maybe it’s the answers.
So yes, on paper, the 2025 election looked like a triumph. But listen closely and you hear the sound of a system cracking under pressure, led by officials more interested in controlling the narrative than earning your trust. And when the people running your elections think the real danger is the voters themselves? That’s when you know the elastic isn’t just stretched. It’s about to snap.
Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .
For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
2025 Federal Election
NDP’s collapse rightly cost them official party status

This article supplied by Troy Media.
By Michael Taube
Official party status requires 12 seats. The NDP got seven. End of story
Rules are rules.
That, in a nutshell, is why the NDP wasn’t granted official party status in the House of Commons on Monday. Prime Minister Mark Carney and the
Liberals, to their credit, made the right decision.
Let’s examine why.
The 1963 Senate and House of Commons Act passed an amendment that gave an annual allowance to party leaders other than the prime minister and
leader of the Opposition. In doing so, the Canadian government had to establish what constitutes a “political party.” The definition they came up with was a sensible one: it had to have a “recognized membership of 12 or more persons in the House of Commons.”
This important amendment is still used today.
The NDP fell from 24 to a paltry seven seats in last month’s federal election. (There are a total of 343 seats in the House of Commons.) They finished with 1,234,673 votes, or 6.29 per cent, which was behind the Liberals, Conservatives and Bloc Québécois. Party leader Jagmeet Singh, who had represented the former Burnaby South riding since 2019, finished a distant third in the newly created Burnaby Central riding and resigned.
The NDP’s seven seats is well below the 12-seat requirement needed for official party status. This means Canada’s socialist alternative won’t be able to ask questions in the House of Commons and will lose out on money for research purposes.
Or, to put it another way, they’re plumb out of luck.
Hold on, some people said. They pointed out that the NDP’s seat count and popular vote only plummeted because many progressive voters backed Carney and the Liberals as the best option to counter U.S. President Donald Trump and his tariffs. They felt that the NDP’s long history as a champion for unions and the working class should count for something. They suggested there should be an exception to the rule.
Guess what? They’re wrong.
This is the worst election result in the party’s history. Even its predecessor, the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF), did marginally better in its first campaign. The CCF won seven out of 245 seats—and earned 410,125 votes, or 9.31 per cent—in the 1935 election. Party leader J.S. Woodsworth, who had represented the riding of Winnipeg North Centre as an Independent Labour MP since 1925, comfortably held his seat.
Meanwhile, this won’t be the first time they’ve ever lost official party status.
The NDP dropped from 43 to nine seats in the 1993 election. It was a dismal showing, to say the least. There was a suggestion at the time that then-party leader Audrey McLaughlin, the first woman to lead a party with political representation in Canada’s House of Commons, deserved a better fate. While the NDP certainly came closer to achieving the 12-seat requirement in this particular election, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and the Liberals decided against granting them official party status.
Why? As I mentioned earlier, rules are rules.
Then again, British pilot Harry Day notably told his fellow flying ace Douglas Bader in 1931, “You know my views about some regulations—they’re written for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.”
Does this mean that individuals and organizations who follow rules are, in fact, fools? Not at all. While certain rules in a liberal democratic society can range from slightly questionable to utterly ridiculous, they’re usually put in place for a specific purpose.
In the case of the House of Commons, it’s to ensure that a bar has been set with respect to political representation. Is 12 seats the right number? That’s difficult to say. It certainly prevents small protest parties and one-issue parties that unexpectedly win a tiny number of seats in an election from acquiring power and status right off the bat. They need to win more seats and grow in size and stature to reach a point of respectability. Most of them never reach this point and disappear while others float in a constant state of mediocrity like the Green Party of Canada. ’Tis the nature of the political beast.
One final point. If Singh and the NDP had reached double digits in total number of seats in 2025, a solid case could have been made in favour of official party status. If they had finished with 11 seats, it would have almost been a lock. Neither scenario ultimately materialized, which is why Carney and the Liberals did exactly what they did.
Michael Taube is a political commentator, Troy Media syndicated columnist and former speechwriter for Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He holds a master’s degree in comparative politics from the London School of Economics, lending academic rigour to his political insights.
Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy1 day ago
Bloodvein Blockade Puts Public Land Rights At Risk
-
Business2 days ago
Deportations causing delays in US construction industry
-
Alberta1 day ago
Parents group blasts Alberta government for weakening sexually explicit school book ban
-
Crime2 days ago
Canadian teacher showed Charlie Kirk assassination video to young students, said he deserved to die
-
National1 day ago
Chrystia Freeland resigns from Mark Carney’s cabinet, asked to become Ukraine envoy
-
Business1 day ago
The Truth Is Buried Under Sechelt’s Unproven Graves
-
Automotive2 days ago
Michigan could be a winner as companies pull back from EVs
-
International1 day ago
France records more deaths than births for the first time in 80 years