Connect with us

Business

Whistleblower Advocacy Sounds the Alarm: Corruption Runs Wild Without Real Protections

Published

1 year ago

11 minute read

The Opposition with Dan Knight
Dan Knight

Survey Exposes Glaring Gaps in Justice and Support for Whistleblowers in Ontario

Let’s be clear: whistleblowers are the unsung heroes standing between a functioning democracy and total government rot. But according to a new survey by the Whistleblowing Canada Research Society, Ontario’s legal system is failing them spectacularly. Funded by The Law Foundation of Ontario, the study surveyed lawyers who handle whistleblower cases. What it found should outrage every Canadian.

Whistleblowers face a gauntlet of obstacles—from legal and financial ruin to retaliation that destroys their careers and lives. The report paints a picture of a system designed to silence truth-tellers and protect the powerful.

The Findings: Whistleblowers Left in the Cold

  1. No Legal or Financial Safety Net:
    Whistleblowers risk everything to expose corruption, but when the lawsuits hit, they’re left on their own. The survey highlights the lack of publicly funded legal support, leaving courageous individuals to fend for themselves against deep-pocketed corporations or government lawyers.
  2. Culture of Fear:
    Want to speak up? Be prepared to lose your job, your reputation, and maybe even your family. Toxic workplace cultures and a cowardly “see no evil” mindset keep most people quiet.
  3. Lawyers Aren’t Ready:
    Shockingly, many legal professionals don’t even understand the laws meant to protect whistleblowers. The result? A justice system ill-equipped to handle cases where the stakes are the highest.

The Bright Spot: Not All Lawyers Are Afraid

Out of the 147 lawyers surveyed, 40 have stepped up, agreeing to take whistleblower cases and join a new directory on Whistleblowing Canada’s website. These are the legal warriors ready to fight for justice, but let’s be honest—40 lawyers in all of Ontario? That’s just a Band-Aid on a gaping wound.

Pamela Forward’s Warning

“This survey research underscores the gaps and barriers hindering whistleblowers from playing their vital role in society,” said Pamela Forward, President of Whistleblowing Canada Research Society.

Translation? If we don’t fix this broken system, corruption wins.

Why This Matters: The Whistleblower Cases That Expose the Rot of Corruption

Over the past three years, whistleblowers have been at the center of some of Canada’s biggest scandals. Each one reveals the price of speaking out—and the lengths to which our so-called leaders will go to hide their dirty laundry.

Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC):
This scandal emerged in early 2023, when whistleblowers within SDTC—a federal green fund intended to support sustainable technologies—raised alarms about rampant financial mismanagement. Senior executives were accused of approving large grants to companies with which they had personal ties, bypassing established funding protocols meant to ensure fairness and accountability. Investigations revealed that millions of taxpayer dollars had been misallocated, with some funds allegedly diverted for personal or non-environmental uses. CEO Leah Lawrence resigned in November 2023 amid mounting public and political pressure. By mid-2024, the fallout led to the dissolution of SDTC as an independent entity, marking a significant failure in oversight of a key federal initiative aimed at combating climate change.

ArriveCAN Contracting Fraud:
The $54 million ArriveCAN app, ostensibly developed to streamline Canada’s pandemic-era border protocols, became a lightning rod for controversy after whistleblowers exposed irregularities in its procurement process. Investigations revealed that GCStrategies, a consulting firm with ties to Liberal-affiliated individuals, acted as a middleman for contracts worth millions. The firm outsourced much of the app’s development to smaller subcontractors while retaining a significant cut of the funds. Critics questioned why the federal government didn’t rely on in-house developers, who could have completed the app for a fraction of the cost. The revelations sparked investigations by the RCMP and parliamentary committees, with whistleblowers alleging that government officials ignored proper oversight to steer contracts toward preferred vendors. Public outrage continues as investigations remain unresolved.

Chinese Election Interference:
In late 2022, a whistleblower within the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) leaked explosive documents detailing Beijing’s covert interference in Canada’s federal elections. According to the classified intelligence, the Chinese government funneled money to at least 11 candidates in the 2019 election and executed disinformation campaigns to influence voter behavior. These efforts were allegedly coordinated by China’s Ministry of State Security and the United Front Work Department, with the goal of securing a Liberal minority government while undermining Conservative candidates perceived as critical of Beijing. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was briefed on the interference but reportedly took no substantive action, sparking accusations that his government prioritized political convenience over national security. Further leaks in 2023 outlined similar interference in the 2021 election, leading to a public inquiry headed by Justice Marie-Josée Hogue. The whistleblower’s disclosures have intensified scrutiny on the Trudeau government’s handling of foreign interference.

Public Sector Integrity Commission’s Incompetence:
The Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, created to provide whistleblowers with a safe avenue to report misconduct in federal workplaces, has become emblematic of bureaucratic failure. As of October 2024, the office faced an overwhelming backlog, with some cases languishing for up to three years without resolution. Whistleblowers have reported losing faith in the system, with delays often leaving them exposed to retaliation while their allegations go unaddressed. Commissioner Harriet Solloway admitted that resource constraints and poor internal management have exacerbated the backlog, effectively rendering the office incapable of fulfilling its mandate. Critics argue that this dysfunction discourages whistleblowing and emboldens bad actors within the federal government.

SNC-Lavalin’s Never-Ending Fallout:
The SNC-Lavalin affair, though originating in 2019, continues to cast a long shadow over Canadian politics. At its core, the scandal involved allegations that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s office improperly pressured then-Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould to secure a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) for SNC-Lavalin, a Quebec-based engineering giant accused of bribery and fraud. Whistleblowers exposed the extent of political interference, leading to Wilson-Raybould’s

Trudeau’s Corruption and NDP Complicity: Laurentian Elites Are Selling Out Accountability

The Trudeau government’s corruption isn’t just a headline—it’s a pattern. A federal green fund turned into a slush fund, shady app contracts funneled to Liberal insiders, Chinese interference in our elections swept under the rug—it’s one scandal after another. And every time, Trudeau shrugs, dodges questions, and tells Canadians to trust him. Trust him? After yesterday’s non-confidence vote, it’s clear he doesn’t need Canadians’ trust as long as he has Jagmeet Singh and the NDP propping up his government.

Let’s not mince words: the NDP just sold out Canada’s integrity. Singh and his party could have stood for whistleblowers, accountability, and democracy. Instead, they chose to keep Trudeau’s corrupt regime afloat, betraying every Canadian who hoped for real leadership. It’s a disgrace, and it proves the NDP has become nothing more than a branch office of the Liberal Party.

The Real Takeaway

The Laurentian elites love to preach about transparency and fairness, but when whistleblowers come forward to expose the rot, those same elites close ranks. Why? Because the system works for them. Corruption is fine—as long as it benefits the right people. And make no mistake, in Trudeau’s Canada, “the right people” are his donors, his insiders, and anyone who helps him cling to power.

What about the people who risk everything to speak the truth? They’re treated like enemies of the state. Retaliation, ruined careers, and endless delays—this is how whistleblowers are punished for defending democracy.

If we don’t demand better, Canada’s message is clear: there’s no price for corruption, and there’s no reward for bravery. This isn’t just about Trudeau’s scandals or the NDP’s betrayal; it’s about whether we believe in the principles that make a free society work—truth, accountability, and justice.

Whistleblowers shouldn’t be punished—they should be celebrated. They’re the last line of defense in a government that has forgotten its duty to the people. It’s time to stop the rot, call out Trudeau’s corruption for what it is, and hold accountable every single person and party enabling it.

Canada deserves better than Trudeau’s Laurentian cronies and the NDP lackeys who keep them in power.

The Opposition is supported by our readers.
Please consider subscribing to receive our posts and support our work. 

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Related Topics:

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

More from this author
Opinion / 10 hours ago

Globally, 2025 had one of the lowest annual death rates from extreme weather in history

Business / 15 hours ago

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

Addictions / 15 hours ago

Coffee, Nicotine, and the Politics of Acceptable Addiction

Business

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

Published on December 31, 2025

By

By Resource Works

By Geoff Russ

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 December 31, 2025

By

The Audit

David Clinton's avatar David Clinton

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