2025 Federal Election
Election Security Briefing Confirms CCP-Linked Operation Boosted Carney

Dan Knight
While Beijing boosts Mark Carney on WeChat, federal officials downplay foreign interference, dodge accountability, and protect the very narrative propped up by the CCP.
As Canadians prepare to head to the polls on April 28, 2025, the federal government is working overtime to project an image of preparedness in the face of growing foreign interference, digital disinformation, and mounting public skepticism.
This week’s National Election Security Briefing—one in a series leading up to the vote—was framed as a gesture of transparency and reassurance. Led by Lauren Kempton, the session brought together senior bureaucrats from Canada’s intelligence, cybersecurity, and diplomatic corps. Among them: Allan Sutherland from the Privy Council Office, Vanessa Lloyd of the SITE Task Force, Bridget Walsh from the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, and Larissa Galarza from Global Affairs.
They were joined virtually by officials from the RCMP, CSIS, and other federal agencies, forming what was presented as a united front against threats to Canada’s democratic process.
This briefing follows last week’s announcement of a new Candidate Security Program, offering private, unarmed security details to protect political candidates from intimidation. It’s a telling sign of the times—when running for office in Canada now comes with real, documented threats from foreign powers.
And if you thought foreign interference was yesterday’s problem, what came next confirmed: it’s not just back—it’s more sophisticated, more aggressive, and more deeply embedded than ever.
The WeChat Election: CCP Bots, Mark Carney, and the Digital Hijacking of Canadian Democracy
The latest federal election security briefing confirmed what many suspected but few in government are willing to say out loud: the Chinese Communist Party is actively trying to shape Canadian politics—and their current project of interest is Mark Carney.
Intelligence services revealed that a state-linked WeChat account called Youli-Youmian, tied directly to the CCP’s Central Political and Legal Affairs Commission, launched an information operation targeting Chinese-Canadian communities. The timing was not subtle. Two major spikes in activity occurred—on March 10 and again on March 25, right in the heart of the federal election campaign. The platform used was WeChat, a messaging app with over a billion users and a long record of CCP censorship, surveillance, and narrative control.
The operation focused on Mark Carney. He was the centerpiece. The content wasn’t one-sided, but it was manipulative. It praised him for being “tough” on the United States—exactly the kind of posture the CCP likes to see in Western leaders. At the same time, it seeded doubts about his experience and readiness to lead. The strategy is transparent: elevate the figure they believe will be most useful, then control the temperature of public perception around him.
The operation was not organic. Intelligence officials described it as “coordinated inauthentic behavior”—mass posting of identical headlines across outlets, bot-driven sharing, engineered engagement. This wasn’t a handful of users with strong opinions. It was algorithmic warfare.
The bureaucrats behind the briefing bent over backwards to downplay the impact. They said the campaign was “contained to one platform” and argued that Canadians have access to diverse information, so the overall electoral process remains “free and fair.” But that’s not the point. The CCP doesn’t need to control the entire media ecosystem. It only needs to shape perception where it counts—and in targeted communities, with targeted narratives, it’s clearly trying to do just that.
The Liberal Party was only briefed on the situation on April 6—after the second spike in activity. That’s weeks after the operation had already gained traction. What happened during that time? Carney’s campaign moved forward without addressing any of it. And now we know why. Whether he’s aware of it or not, the CCP sees value in propping him up—at least in the right communities, with the right messaging. If that doesn’t send alarm bells ringing, it should.
This isn’t speculation. It’s documented. It’s active. And it’s part of a larger pattern. The same interference networks have previously targeted Conservative MPs like Michael Chong, Erin O’Toole, and Kenny Chiu. They’ve gone after Chrystia Freeland too. But the recent attention to Carney marks something new—not just an attempt to tear down opponents, but to sculpt the image of a candidate who just might serve certain foreign interests, directly or indirectly.
The Chinese Communist Party doesn’t operate on party loyalty. It operates on leverage. And this operation—whether Carney asked for it or not—is a sign that Beijing believes his leadership could be shaped to their advantage.
The Canadian government can claim “no impact” all it wants. But influence isn’t always measured by votes—it’s measured by narrative, tone, and who ends up in the spotlight looking just a little more “strong” or “stable” through the right lens. Beijing’s lens.
The CCP’s Safe Bet: Mark Carney
And now, after days of playing cleanup behind a polished podium, the government rolls out a Q&A session to assure us that “nothing’s wrong,” “everything’s under control,” and that the CCP’s operation to shape the election isn’t a big deal because—get this—it only ran on one platform.
Let’s be blunt: the CCP isn’t playing to win headlines on Twitter. They’re not interested in going viral on Facebook. They’re targeting WeChat—because that’s where Chinese-Canadian voters live, talk, and form political opinions. And in that space, Beijing amplified Mark Carney—not because he’s “tough,” not because he’s competent, but because he’s good for China.
Canada has become a proxy battleground in a new Cold War between the West and the Chinese Communist Party. And Carney? He’s the CCP’s safe bet. Let’s not forget: this is the man whose financial career includes a quarter-billion-dollar loan from the Bank of China while chairing Brookfield Asset Management. The same man who’s never disclosed his full assets, despite now leading a party that’s still pretending foreign interference is just noise on the margins.
And now, in classic bureaucratic fashion, SITE and the government tell us they “don’t speculate on intent.” They claim the CCP is just sowing discord. That their approach is “party-agnostic.” That they weren’t trying to help Carney, just “pollute the digital environment.”
Give me a break. You don’t call someone a “tough opponent” to the U.S. and a “rock star” in a state-linked campaign unless you’re trying to boost their image. You don’t run coordinated bot amplification to spread content about one candidate because you’re bored and trying to “confuse people.” This wasn’t confusion. This was elevation.
And what did the government do? They flagged the content. They told Tencent about it. And then they backed off—because they don’t require any action. The PRC is running soft propaganda on a Canadian election platform, and Ottawa’s solution is: “Well, we told them. Hopefully they fix it.”
What’s worse? When asked about it directly, the government refused to name Carney as the beneficiary. They said they don’t want to “amplify the content” by repeating it. So let’s get this straight: Beijing gets to run a pro-Carney campaign, but Canadians aren’t even allowed to know the details?
That’s not protecting democracy. That’s protecting a narrative.
The truth is, Mark Carney is not being elevated because he’s good for Canadians. He’s being elevated because he’s safe for Beijing. The Liberals know it. The bureaucrats know it. And so far, no one in power has had the spine to stop it—because China’s interference benefits the very political class that claims to oppose it.
So when they talk about “safeguarding our democracy,” ask yourself: who are they really safeguarding it from? Because right now, it’s not from foreign influence—it’s from accountability.
Invite your friends and earn rewards
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.
-
Opinion2 days ago
Jordan Peterson needs prayers as he battles serious health issues, daughter Mikhaila says
-
COVID-191 day ago
Freedom Convoy Sentencing: Lich and Barber escape prison terms but will spend months in house arrest
-
Alberta1 day ago
‘Visionary’ Yellowhead Pipeline poised to launch Alberta into the future
-
Immigration2 days ago
Conservatives blame Liberals for allowing man on UK child sex offender list to enter Canada
-
COVID-1919 hours ago
Devastating COVID-19 Vaccine Side Effect Confirmed by New Data: Study
-
espionage2 days ago
Canada’s federal election in April saw ‘small scale’ foreign meddling: gov’t watchdog
-
Crime1 day ago
Canadian Sovereignty at Stake: Stunning Testimony at Security Hearing in Ottawa from Sam Cooper
-
COVID-191 day ago
Chris Barber will not see prison time for his role in peaceful Freedom Convoy