Connect with us

Business

Hurricane Donald, Or Not, Canada Should Have Fixed These Problems Long Ago

Published

9 minute read

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.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

Land use will be British Columbia’s biggest issue in 2026

Published on

By Resource Works

Tariffs may fade. The collision between reconciliation, property rights, and investment will not.

British Columbia will talk about Donald Trump’s tariffs in 2026, and it will keep grinding through affordability. But the issue that will decide whether the province can build, invest, and govern is land use.

The warning signs were there in 2024. Land based industries still generate 12 per cent of B.C.’s GDP, and the province controls more than 90 per cent of the land base, and land policy was already being remade through opaque processes, including government to government tables. When rules for access to land feel unsettled, money flows slow into a trickle.

The Cowichan ruling sends shockwaves

In August 2025, the Cowichan ruling turned that unease into a live wire. The court recognized the Cowichan’s Aboriginal title over roughly 800 acres within Richmond, including lands held by governments and unnamed third parties. It found that grants of fee simple and other interests unjustifiably infringed that title, and declared certain Canada and Richmond titles and interests “defective and invalid,” with those invalidity declarations suspended for 18 months to give governments time to make arrangements.

The reaction has been split. Supporters see a reminder that constitutional rights do not evaporate because land changed hands. Critics see a precedent that leaves private owners exposed, especially because unnamed owners in the claim area were not parties to the case and did not receive formal notice. Even the idea of “coexistence” has become contentious, because both Aboriginal title and fee simple convey exclusive rights to decide land use and capture benefits.

Market chill sets in

McLTAikins translated the risk into advice that landowners and lenders can act on: registered ownership is not immune from constitutional scrutiny, and the land title system cannot cure a constitutional defect where Aboriginal title is established. Their explanation of fee simple reads less like theory than a due diligence checklist that now reaches beyond the registry.

By December, the market was answering. National Post columnist Adam Pankratz reported that an industrial landowner within the Cowichan title area lost a lender and a prospective tenant after a $35 million construction loan was pulled. He also described a separate Richmond hotel deal where a buyer withdrew after citing precedent risk, even though the hotel was not within the declared title lands. His case that uncertainty is already changing behaviour is laid out in Montrose.

Caroline Elliott captured how quickly court language moved into daily life after a City Richmond letter warned some owners that their title might be compromised. Whatever one thinks of that wording, it pushed land law out of the courtroom and into the mortgage conversation.

Mining and exploration stall

The same fault line runs through the critical minerals push. A new mineral claims regime now requires consultation before claims are approved, and critics argue it slows early stage exploration and forces prospectors to reveal targets before they can secure rights. Pankratz made that critique earlier, in his argument about mineral staking.

Resource Works, summarising AME feedback on Mineral Tenure Act modernisation, reported that 69.5 per cent of respondents lacked confidence in proposed changes, and that more than three quarters reported increased uncertainty about doing business in B.C. The theme is not anti consultation. It is that process, capacity, and timelines decide whether consultation produces partnership or paralysis.

Layered on top is the widening fight over UNDRIP implementation and DRIPA. Geoffrey Moyse, KC, called for repeal in a Northern Beat essay on DRIPA, arguing that Section 35 already provides the constitutional framework and that trying to operationalise UNDRIP invites litigation and uncertainty.

Tariffs and housing will still dominate headlines. But they are downstream of land. Until B.C. offers a stable bargain over who can do what, where, and on what foundation, every other promise will be hostage to the same uncertainty. For a province still built on land based wealth, Resource Works argues in its institutional history that the resource economy cannot be separated from land rules. In 2026, that is the main stage.

Resource Works News

Continue Reading

Business

What Do Loyalty Rewards Programs Cost Us?

Published on

You’ve certainly been asked (begged!) to join up for at least one loyalty “points” program – like PC Optimum, Aeroplan, or Hilton Honors – over the years. And the odds are that you’re currently signed up for at least one of them. In fact, the average person apparently belongs to at no less than 14 programs. Although, ironically, you’ll need to sign up to an online equivalent of a loyalty program to read the source for that number.

Well all that warm, fuzzy “belonging” comes with some serious down sides. Let’s see how much they might cost us.

To be sure, there’s real money involved here. Canadians redeem at least two billion dollars in program rewards each year, and payouts will often represent between one and ten percent of the original purchase value.

At the same time, it’s estimated that there could be tens of billions of unredeemed dollars due to expirations, shifting program terms, and simple neglect. So getting your goodies isn’t automatic.

The Audit is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Just why do consumer-facing corporations agree to give away so much money in the fist place?

As you probably already know, it’s about your data. Businesses are willing to pay cold, hard cash in exchange for detailed descriptions of your age, sex, ethnicity, wealth, location, employment status, hobbies, preferences, medical conditions, political leanings, and, of course, shopping habits.

Don’t believe it works? So then why, after all these years, are points programs still giving away billions of dollars?

Every time you participate in such a program, the data associated with that activity will be collected and aggregated along with everything else known about you. It’s more than likely that points-based data is being combined with everything connected to your mobile phone account, email addresses, credit cards, provincial health card, and – possibly – your Social Insurance number. The depth and accuracy of your digital profile improves daily.

What happens to all that data? A lot of it is shared with – or sold to – partners or affiliates for marketing purposes. Some of it is accidentally (or intentionally) leaked to organized criminal gangs driving call center-related scams. But it’s all about getting to know you better in ways that maximize someone’s profits.

One truly scary way this data is used involves surveillance pricing (also known as price discrimination) – particularly as it’s described in a recent post by Professor Sylvain Charlebois.

The idea is that retailers will use your digital profile to adjust the prices you pay at the cash register or when you’re shopping online. The more loyal you are as a customer, the more you’ll pay. That’s because regular (“loyal”) customers are already reliable revenue sources. Companies don’t need to spend anything to build a relationship with you. But they’re more than willing to give up a few percentage points to gain new friends.

I’m not talking about the kind of price discrimination that might lead to higher prices for sales in, say, urban locations to account for higher real estate and transportation costs. Those are just normal business decisions.

What Professor Charlebois described is two customers paying different prices for the same items in the same stores. In fact, a recent Consumer Reports experiment in the U.S. involving 437 shoppers in four cities found the practice to be quite common.

But the nasty bit here is that there’s growing evidence that retailers are using surveillance pricing in grocery stores for basic food items. Extrapolating from the Consumer Reports study, such pricing could be adding $1,200 annually to a typical family’s spending on basic groceries.

I’m not sure what the solution is. It’s way too late to “unenroll” from our loyalty accounts. And government intervention would probably just end up making things worse.

But perhaps getting the word out about what’s happening could spark justified mistrust in the big retailers. No retailer enjoys dealing with grumpy customers.

Be grumpy.

The Audit is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Continue Reading

Trending

X