Business
Hurricane Donald, Or Not, Canada Should Have Fixed These Problems Long Ago
By Jeremy Nuttall
Jeremy Nuttall, former Toronto Star investigative reporter, argues “In recent years the U.S. has been solving problems the Canadian government wasn’t interested in.”
The nerves have been frazzled north of the border here in typical Canadian style, in the wake of the election of Donald Trump as president of ‘those’ United States. As Robin Williams famously said, Canada is like a really nice apartment over a meth lab.
And now, a significant swath of Canadians are reeling from the election of a man who has so many failings, both with his character and ethics, running the most powerful nation on Earth, with whom we share a border. It has understandably sparked a doomsday scenario in the minds of many Canadians.
But if you’re looking for a way to work out this nervous energy, here’s an idea: help put Canada’s house in order. This apartment isn’t as nice as the late Mr. Williams would have us believe.
Trump’s first term as a U.S. president saw many guardrails and civil servants prevent him from enacting his full agenda. The U.S. institutions did a decent job of mitigating damage. Oh, how nice it would be to see such gumption in the halls of power in Canada. But we don’t, and that makes this country even more susceptible than the Americans are to the whims of any nefarious would-be ruler.
In recent years, the U.S. has been solving problems the Canadian government either wasn’t interested in, didn’t know about, or, most likely, didn’t care about.
The money laundering charges against TD, taking a stand on issues related to Beijing, including foreign interference, and acting to stop slave-labor-made goods from entering the country while Ottawa did nothing are just a few examples. Say what you want about the U.S.; they forced Canada’s hand on these issues or drew attention to our country’s inaction.
But that’s likely over for now, and if you’re really worried about the perils of a Trump-style candidate ever coming to Canada, you should be aware this country has already had the kind of scandals Trump’s next presidency is predicted to bring.
What do I mean?
Foreign interference, money laundering, cronyism, and the breaking of our transparency laws are commonplace. We have an opacity problem combined with institutions less resistant to scumbaggery, and anyone with enough power and little conscience could really manipulate them if they so wished.
Examples? Sure. We can start with the government refusing to hand over all the documents as ordered by Parliament related to Sustainable Development Technology Canada. The Liberals’ refusal to give up such documents has had Ottawa in gridlock for months. Doesn’t that sound like something a Trump-style candidate would do?
We found out last month that, after Liberal Party supporters chastised “illegal CSIS leakers” for giving evidence the PMO chose to ignore to the media, Trudeau’s national security adviser and deputy minister of foreign affairs leaked information about India’s potential involvement in the assassination of a Sikh leader to one of the biggest U.S. media outlets going, The Washington Post. I haven’t seen any demands for an investigation into that.
We’ve also recently had the Greenbelt scandal in Ontario, the ArriveCAN scandal, and B.C.’s money laundering inquiry revealing how white this country can make your green. The RCMP, meanwhile, more frequently doesn’t release basic information about crimes, including the names of homicide victims (an important, though somber, matter of public record).
Then there’s the increasing liberties being taken with our systems of government by those in charge of it. Wab Kinew’s Manitoba NDP booted a lawyer out of caucus because someone in his firm—not even him—is defending Peter Nygard in his sexual assault trial. Kinew apologized after uproar from legal groups, but the move draws into question how important the right to a defense and its importance to the justice system is for that government.
Over in Alberta, Danielle Smith is making anti-vaxxers feel special by crafting legislation specifically protecting them from workplace vaccination mandates, in what is obviously a politically driven waste of public resources.
Last week, we learned the CRA apparently orchestrated a “witch hunt” to find out who dropped the dime on their false reimbursement scandal. And while we’re on the CRA, you may recall more than 230 CRA civil servants were fired earlier this year for falsely claiming CERB.
It goes on, and, as bad as all that is, what’s worse is how our political parties have, without any real opposition, politicized our civil service.
ATIPs and FOIs aren’t returned within legislated timelines as staffers thumb their noses at the media and public. There’s a sense of entitlement to use public funds and information for political advantage, and it’s just ignored by the public. Our government ministerial positions are more frequently filled with career ladder-climbers rather than seasoned professionals with a proven track record before entering politics.
Going back further, Jody Wilson-Raybould was tarnished for not toeing the line in the SNC Lavalin Scandal. Our former ambassador to China effectively took China’s side in the Meng Wanzhou detention over our biggest ally, saying it’d be “great for Canada” if the U.S. dropped its extradition case against her.
The same man, John McCallum, would later tell Chinese officials that their continued targeting of Canadian trade could lead to a Conservative government. Sure, it raised eyebrows, but nothing came of it.
This is your country, Canadians, and it’s open season. It doesn’t matter what party is in charge; these issues of accountability and politicization exist in all of them.
Don’t look for the media to save us. Many editors don’t see what the big deal is with all this. “It’s always been like this” is something I’ve heard way more times than I’d care to list from journalists in recent years.
Aside from a few bright lights or publications, Canadian media is either unwilling or incapable of really digging into some of the more serious issues like foreign interference, government corruption, and the lack of transparency.
The goodwill of the Canadian public and warm fuzzy feelings about this country help keep the status quo. If we ever have a serious threat from a Trump-like politician, this place is easy pickings.
We’d be wise to, instead of collectively shaking our heads and ranting about the decision made by the U.S. public, start making sure it can’t happen up here and make the current threats to our democracy your issues.
The Bureau is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. We break international stories and this requires elite expertise, time and legal costs.
Business
Canada invests $34 million in Chinese drones now considered to be ‘high security risks’
From LifeSiteNews
Of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s fleet of 1,200 drones, 79% pose national security risks due to them being made in China
Canada’s top police force spent millions on now near-useless and compromised security drones, all because they were made in China, a nation firmly controlled by the Communist Chinese Party (CCP) government.
An internal report by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) to Canada’s Senate national security committee revealed that $34 million in taxpayer money was spent on a fleet of 973 Chinese-made drones.
Replacement drones are more than twice the cost of the Chinese-made ones between $31,000 and $35,000 per unit. In total, the RCMP has about 1,228 drones, meaning that 79 percent of its drone fleet poses national security risks due to them being made in China.
The RCMP said that Chinese suppliers are “currently identified as high security risks primarily due to their country of origin, data handling practices, supply chain integrity and potential vulnerability.”
In 2023, the RCMP put out a directive that restricted the use of the made-in-China drones, putting them on duty for “non-sensitive operations” only, however, with added extra steps for “offline data storage and processing.”
The report noted that the “Drones identified as having a high security risk are prohibited from use in emergency response team activities involving sensitive tactics or protected locations, VIP protective policing operations, or border integrity operations or investigations conducted in collaboration with U.S. federal agencies.”
The RCMP earlier this year said it was increasing its use of drones for border security.
Senator Claude Carignan had questioned the RCMP about what kind of precautions it uses in contract procurement.
“Can you reassure us about how national security considerations are taken into account in procurement, especially since tens of billions of dollars have been announced for procurement?” he asked.
“I want to make sure national security considerations are taken into account.”
The use of the drones by Canada’s top police force is puzzling, considering it has previously raised awareness of Communist Chinese interference in Canada.
Indeed, as reported by LifeSiteNews, earlier in the year, an RCMP internal briefing note warned that agents of the CCP are targeting Canadian universities to intimidate them and, in some instances, challenge them on their “political positions.”
The final report from the Foreign Interference Commission concluded that operatives from China may have helped elect a handful of MPs in both the 2019 and 2021 Canadian federal elections. It also concluded that China was the primary foreign interference threat to Canada.
Chinese influence in Canadian politics is unsurprising for many, especially given former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s past admiration for China’s “basic dictatorship.”
As reported by LifeSiteNews, a Canadian senator appointed by Trudeau told Chinese officials directly that their nation is a “partner, not a rival.”
China has been accused of direct election meddling in Canada, as reported by LifeSiteNews.
As reported by LifeSiteNews, an exposé by investigative journalist Sam Cooper claims there is compelling evidence that Carney and Trudeau are strongly influenced by an “elite network” of foreign actors, including those with ties to China and the World Economic Forum. Despite Carney’s later claims that China poses a threat to Canada, he said in 2016 the Communist Chinese regime’s “perspective” on things is “one of its many strengths.”
Business
The EU Insists Its X Fine Isn’t About Censorship. Here’s Why It Is.
Europe calls it transparency, but it looks a lot like teaching the internet who’s allowed to speak.
|
When the European Commission fined X €120 million on December 5, officials could not have been clearer. This, they said, was not about censorship. It was just about “transparency.”
They repeat it so often you start to wonder why.
The fine marks the first major enforcement of the Digital Services Act, Europe’s new censorship-driven internet rulebook.
It was sold as a consumer protection measure, designed to make online platforms safer and more accountable, and included a whole list of censorship requirements, fining platforms that don’t comply.
The Commission charged X with three violations: the paid blue checkmark system, the lack of advertising data, and restricted data access for researchers.
None of these touches direct content censorship. But all of them shape visibility, credibility, and surveillance, just in more polite language.
Musk’s decision to turn blue checks into a subscription feature ended the old system where establishment figures, journalists, politicians, and legacy celebrities got verification.
The EU called Musk’s decision “deceptive design.” The old version, apparently, was honesty itself. Before, a blue badge meant you were important. After, it meant you paid. Brussels prefers the former, where approved institutions get algorithmic priority, and the rest of the population stays in the queue.
The new system threatened that hierarchy. Now, anyone could buy verification, diluting the aura of authority once reserved for anointed voices.
Reclaim The Net is sustained by its readers.
Your support fuels the fight for privacy, free speech and digital civil liberties while giving you access to exclusive content, practical how to guides, premium features and deeper dives into freedom-focused tech.
Become a supporter here.
However, that’s not the full story. Under the old Twitter system, verification was sold as a public service, but in reality it worked more like a back-room favor and a status purchase.
The main application process was shut down in 2010, so unless you were already famous, the only way to get a blue check was to spend enough money on advertising or to be important enough to trigger impersonation problems.
Ad Age reported that advertisers who spent at least fifteen thousand dollars over three months could get verified, and Twitter sales reps told clients the same thing. That meant verification was effectively a perk reserved for major media brands, public figures, and anyone willing to pay. It was a symbol of influence rationed through informal criteria and private deals, creating a hierarchy shaped by cronyism rather than transparency.
Under the new X rules, everyone is on a level playing field.
Government officials and agencies now sport gray badges, symbols of credibility that can’t be purchased. These are the state’s chosen voices, publicly marked as incorruptible. To the EU, that should be a safeguard.
The second and third violations show how “transparency” doubles as a surveillance mechanism. X was fined for limiting access to advertising data and for restricting researchers from scraping platform content. Regulators called that obstruction. Musk called it refusing to feed the censorship machine.
The EU’s preferred researchers aren’t neutral archivists. Many have been documented coordinating with governments, NGOs, and “fact-checking” networks that flagged political content for takedown during previous election cycles.
They call it “fighting disinformation.” Critics call it outsourcing censorship pressure to academics.
Under the DSA, these same groups now have the legal right to demand data from platforms like X to study “systemic risks,” a phrase broad enough to include whatever speech bureaucrats find undesirable this month.
The result is a permanent state of observation where every algorithmic change, viral post, or trending topic becomes a potential regulatory case.
The advertising issue completes the loop. Brussels says it wants ad libraries to be fully searchable so users can see who’s paying for what. It gives regulators and activists a live feed of messaging, ready for pressure campaigns.
The DSA doesn’t delete ads; it just makes it easier for someone else to demand they be deleted.
That’s how this form of censorship works: not through bans, but through endless exposure to scrutiny until platforms remove the risk voluntarily.
The Commission insists, again and again, that the fine has “nothing to do with content.”
That may be true on a direct level, but the rules shape content all the same. When governments decide who counts as authentic, who qualifies as a researcher, and how visibility gets distributed, speech control doesn’t need to be explicit. It’s baked into the system.
Brussels calls it user protection. Musk calls it punishment for disobedience. This particular DSA fine isn’t about what you can say, it’s about who’s allowed to be heard saying it.
TikTok escaped similar scrutiny by promising to comply. X didn’t, and that’s the difference. The EU prefers companies that surrender before the hearing. When they don’t, “transparency” becomes the pretext for a financial hammer.
The €120 million fine is small by tech standards, but symbolically it’s huge.
It tells every platform that “noncompliance” means questioning the structure of speech the EU has already defined as safe.
In the official language of Brussels, this is a regulation. But it’s managed discourse, control through design, moderation through paperwork, censorship through transparency.
And the louder they insist it isn’t, the clearer it becomes that it is.
|
|
|
|
Reclaim The Net Needs Your
With your help, we can do more than hold the line. We can push back. We can expose censorship, highlight surveillance overreach, and amplify the voices of those being silenced.
If you have found value in our work, please consider becoming a supporter.
Your support does more than keep us independent. It also gives you access to exclusive content, deep dive exploration of freedom focused technology, member-only features, and practical how-to posts that help you protect your rights in the real world.
You help us expand our reach, educate more people, and continue this fight.
Please become a supporter today.
Thank you for your support.
|
-
MAiD1 day agoFrom Exception to Routine. Why Canada’s State-Assisted Suicide Regime Demands a Human-Rights Review
-
Business1 day agoCarney government should privatize airports—then open airline industry to competition
-
Business1 day agoWhat’s Going On With Global Affairs Canada and Their $392 Million Spending Trip to Brazil?
-
Energy1 day agoCanada following Europe’s stumble by ignoring energy reality
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days agoFrances Widdowson’s Arrest Should Alarm Every Canadian
-
Focal Points2 days agoPharma Bombshell: President Trump Orders Complete Childhood Vaccine Schedule Review
-
Automotive2 days agoCanada’s EV Mandate Is Running On Empty
-
Aristotle Foundation2 days agoThe extreme ideology behind B.C.’s radical reconciliation agenda




