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

Todayville

Published

1 week ago

11 minute read

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

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.
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.
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.

Up Next

Norway’s Trainwreck – How Taxing Unrealized Gains Has Caused an Entrepreneurial Exodus

Don't Miss

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

Todayville

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

Canada can – and should – crack down on trade-based money laundering

Energy / 5 hours ago

Coldest city in Canada at war with natural gas and common sense

Business

Canada can – and should – crack down on trade-based money laundering

Published on December 8, 2024

Todayville

From the Macdonald Laurier Institute

By Jamie Ferrill for Inside Policy

Neglecting to take decisive action enables organized criminal networks whose activities cause significant harm on our streets and those of our international partners.

Financial crime bears considerable political and economic risk. For the incoming Trump administration, the threat that transnational organized crime and the illicit financial flows pose to global financial stability is a top priority. The threat of tariffs by the Trump administration makes the costs to Canada in enabling global financial crime all too apparent. In addition to the cost of tariffs themselves, the associated reputational risk and loss of confidence in Canada’s financial system has implications for investments, credit, supply chains, and bilateral co-operation and agreements.

Canada’s proximity to major international markets, stable economy, high standard of living, and strong institutions and frameworks make it an attractive place to do business: for both legitimate and criminal enterprises.

Trade is a key contributing sector for Canada’s economic security. It represents two-thirds of Canada’s GDP, and exports alone support nearly 3.3 million Canadian jobs. Trade is also highly vulnerable to criminal exploitation. Ineffective oversight, regulatory complexity, and lagging technology adoption, coupled with a lack of export controls, make it possible to move vast proceeds of crimes, such as those from drug trafficking, human trafficking, corruption, and tax evasion through the global trade system.

These vulnerabilities are well-known by transnational organized crime groups. They are able to effectively move billions of dollars of dirty money through the global trade system every year, a method commonly referred to as Trade-Based Money Laundering (TBML).

While any statistics must be interpreted with caution, evidence shows that TBML is a prevalent method of money laundering.

What is it?

There are several types of Trade-Based Financial Crimes such as terrorism financing through trade, sanctions evasion, and simply trade fraud. However, the TBML definition is necessarily specific. Essentially here, TBML is a money laundering method: the processing of criminal proceeds to disguise their illegal origin. TBML involves the movement of value through the global trade system to obfuscate the illicit origin. This is usually done through document fraud: undervaluing, overvaluing, phantom shipping, or multiple invoicing. Different techniques employ different aspects of the supply chain. And TBML may be just one method used within larger money laundering operations.

By way of example, US authorities allege that two Chinese nationals living in Chicago laundered tens of millions of dollars for the Sinaloa and Jalisco Cartels. Drugs were smuggled into the United States and sold throughout the country. The proceeds from these sales were collected by the Chinese nationals. Those proceeds were used to purchase bulk electronics in the United States, which were then shipped – with a falsified value – to co-conspirators in China, who sold them locally. The legitimacy provided by the electronics sales and the trade transaction provide cover to “clean” proceeds from precursor crime.

Either the importer and/or the exporter of the goods can shift value. Chances here are the electronics shipped were undervalued: on leaving the country, they are declared at a (much) lower value than they are actually worth. The importer in China pays the undervalued invoice, then sells the goods for what they are worth. The profit from those electronics now appears clean, since it was used for a “legitimate” sale. The ensuing value gap can be transferred informally or stored as illicit wealth. The value has now shifted, without fiat currency leaving the country of origin.

But the cycle does not stop there. The value and money itself continue to traverse around the world, through various intermediaries such as financial institutions or cryptocurrency exchanges. It then goes right back into the system and enables the very crimes and organized crime groups that generated it in the first place. It is, in short, the business model of organized crime.

The Canadian problem

Ultimately, the proceeds of crime that have been legitimised through TBML (and other money laundering methods) supports the criminal enterprises that generated the value in the first place. In the example, these are prolific cartels who have been behind the fentanyl crisis, migrant trafficking and abuse, corruption, and widespread violence that destabilizes communities and undermines governments across North America and beyond.

With new actors, drug routes, and ways of doing business, the cartels are very much active in Canada. The Sinaloa cartel in particular has established a significant presence in Canada where it controls the cocaine market, manufactures and distributes fentanyl, and is embedded in local criminal networks. This increases Canada’s role as a strategic location for drug trafficking and a base to export abroad, notably to Europe, the US, and Australia.

Hells Angels, Red Scorpions, ’Ndrangheta, and other organized crime groups are also exploiting Canada’s strategic location using their transnational links. These groups are active in criminal activities that generate proceeds of crime, which they launder through Canadian institutions. From drug trafficking to extortion to human and sex trafficking, the foundation of organized crime relies on generating and maximizing profits. The proceeds generally need to be laundered; otherwise, there are direct lines back to the criminal organizations. They are, without a doubt, exploiting the trade sector; the very sector that provides so much economic security for Canada.

Canada’s regulation, reporting, and prosecution record for money laundering is notoriously weak. Its record for regulation, reporting, and prosecution for trade-based financial crimes, namely here TBML, is even weaker.

As financial institutions and other regulated entities face increased scrutiny following the TD Bank scandal and the Cullen Commission’s inquiry into money laundering in BC, more criminal activity is likely to be displaced into the trade sector and the institutions it comprises.

TBML is difficult for financial institutions to detect, especially given that 80 per cent of trade is done through open accounts. It exploits established trade structures that are meant to protect the system –like documentation and invoicing processes – by manipulating transactions outside traditional payment systems, which requires more sophisticated anti-money laundering strategies to address these hidden vulnerabilities.

Addressing the problem

Trade is a gaping vulnerability. Yet, it attracts minimal attention in countering transnational financial crime. Containing the fentanyl crisis for one requires a collaborative effort to bolster supply chains and the trade sector against financial crime. This means global cooperation, technological advances (such as blockchain technology), appropriate resourcing, more scrutiny on high-risk countries and shippers, and regulatory innovation.

But political will is in short supply. The federal government’s Budget 2024 and the resulting proposed Regulations Amending Certain Regulations Made Under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorism Financing Act will grant CBSA new authorities to counter TBML, but limited resources to make good on them. And CBSA cannot do it alone.

Transnational organized crime and the illicit financial flows that support it poses a threat to global financial stability. The enabling of financial crime hurts Canada’s reputation abroad. With a new political regime emerging in the US, Canada cannot afford to be seen as a weak link. Loss of confidence in a country and its financial system has implications for investments, credit, supply chains, and bilateral cooperation and agreements.

By neglecting to take decisive action, we inadvertently enable organized criminal networks whose activities cause significant harm on our streets and those of our international partners. With profits as their primary driver, it is imperative that we scrutinize financial pathways to disrupt these illicit operations effectively.

Organized crime groups are not bound by privacy laws, bureaucracy, political agendas, and government budgets. They are continually evolving and staying many steps ahead of what Canada is equipped to control: technologically, geographically, strategically, logistically, and tactically. Without appropriate regulations, technological advances, and resources in place, we will continue to be a laggard in countering financial crime.

More systematic change is needed across regulatory frameworks, law enforcement coordination and resourcing, and international partnerships to strengthen oversight, close loopholes, and enhance detection and disruption. It would be a low-cost signal to the Trump administration that Canada is committed to upping its game.

Jamie Ferrill is senior lecturer in Financial Crime at Charles Sturt University and co-editor of Dirty Money: Financial Crime in Canada.

Business

TikTok on the Clock: US Appeals Court Hits the “Ban” Button

Published on December 7, 2024

Todayville

By Christina Maas

The winds of Washington are blowing icy cold for TikTok this December. A federal appeals court panel handed down a ruling today that could send the app packing— or at least force it into a kind of corporate divorce.

The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has today declared the law threatening TikTok’s existence to be totally constitutional, leaving the platform to fight for its digital life. In short, TikTok has until mid-January to break ties with its Beijing-based parent, ByteDance, or risk an outright ban in the United States.

TikTok responded with the following statement:

“The Supreme Court has an established historical record of protecting Americans’ right to free speech, and we expect they will do just that on this important constitutional issue. Unfortunately, the TikTok ban was conceived and pushed through based upon inaccurate, flawed and hypothetical information, resulting in outright censorship of the American people. The TikTok ban, unless stopped, will silence the voices of over 170 million Americans here in the US and around the world on January 19th, 2025.”

The Free Speech Shuffle

TikTok played the First Amendment card, arguing that banning the platform would stomp on Americans’ free speech rights. But the court wasn’t having it, throwing in a little verbal aikido about protecting actual freedom.

“The First Amendment exists to protect free speech in the United States,” the court wrote, presumably while straightening its tie in a metaphorical mirror. “Here the Government acted solely to protect that freedom from a foreign adversary nation and to limit that adversary’s ability to gather data on people in the United States.”

Translation: TikTok, it’s not you — it’s China.

TikTok has been accused of being influenced by the Chinese Communist Party.

ByteDance’s Legal Tango

TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, is already planning to appeal to the Supreme Court because apparently, they’re gluttons for punishment. And hey, why not? When you’re staring down a deadline that could nuke your entire US business, you either fight or fold.

But here’s where it gets interesting: the same President-elect Donald Trump who once tried to fire TikTok like it was a contestant on The Apprentice now says he’s against a ban. Trump has promised to swoop in and “save” the platform during his second term.

The law itself was signed by President Joe Biden in April, marking a rare bipartisan moment in a town otherwise allergic to cooperation. For years, Washington has been gnashing its teeth over TikTok’s ties to the Chinese government, accusing the app of being a national security threat disguised as a dance challenge factory.

Of course, critics argue this is about power. TikTok’s cultural dominance has made it an unpredictable disruptor, threatening not only Big Tech’s grip on social media but also giving the average American teen more clout than your local senator.

Government officials argue that the app’s voracious appetite for user data could lead to sensitive information, from browsing histories to biometric identifiers, being vacuumed up by the Chinese communist government. But the main issue? The proprietary algorithm, that magical machine-learning potion that keeps you scrolling at 2 a.m., is painted as a weapon of influence — a subtle but powerful propaganda tool ready to tweak your feed for Beijing’s benefit.

Except, there’s a catch: a good chunk of the government’s evidence for these claims is locked behind classified curtains. TikTok’s attorneys — and by extension the American public — are left in the dark.

More than 170 million Americans use TikTok.

TikTok Fights Back

TikTok has steadfastly denied being a Chinese Trojan horse, insisting that no evidence exists to prove they’ve ever handed over data to Beijing. As for the algorithm? TikTok says any suggestion of manipulation is pure speculation. Their legal team hammered home that the government’s arguments rely on what might happen in the future — a slippery foundation for ripping apart a platform that’s glued to the cultural zeitgeist.

But the Department of Justice isn’t just playing futurist. It has hinted — vaguely and ominously — at unspecified past actions by TikTok and ByteDance in response to Chinese government demands. The key word here is “unspecified,” because whatever receipts the DOJ might have, they’re conveniently out of reach for TikTok’s lawyers, the media, or anyone else.

A Courtroom Tango: First Amendment vs. National Security

The appeals court panel, a politically mixed trio of judges, seemed as torn as the rest of us about how far Uncle Sam can stretch its First Amendment arguments to justify banning an app with foreign ties. Over two hours of oral arguments in September, the judges volleyed tough questions at both sides.

Can the government really shut down a platform just because it’s foreign-owned? the judges asked, channeling TikTok’s core argument. On the flip side: What happens if this platform turns into a covert disinformation campaign during wartime? they wondered, invoking wartime-era laws restricting foreign ownership of broadcast licenses.

Both sides twisted themselves into legal yoga poses. TikTok’s lawyer, Andrew Pincus, argued that a private company — even one with foreign owners — deserves constitutional protections. The DOJ’s Daniel Tenny countered that the government has a duty to head off potential foreign interference, even if the threat isn’t fully realized yet.

$2 Billion in Data Defenses

TikTok itself hasn’t just been sitting back while lawyers spar. The company claims it’s invested over $2 billion to fortify its US data, including setting up Project Texas — a heavily marketed initiative to store American user data on servers managed by Oracle. ByteDance has also floated the idea of a comprehensive draft agreement that it says could have eased Washington’s fears years ago.

But according to TikTok, the Biden administration ghosted them, walking away from the negotiating table without offering a viable path forward. The DOJ insists the draft didn’t go far enough, but skeptics wonder if the government’s hardline stance is less about national security and more about flexing control over Big Tech.

Divestment Drama

Washington’s solution to the TikTok dilemma sounds deceptively simple: ByteDance should sell the US arm of TikTok. However attorneys for the company argue that such a divestment would be a logistical and commercial nightmare. And without TikTok’s algorithm—intellectual property that Beijing is unlikely to let go of—the app would lose its magic. Imagine TikTok without its eerily intuitive feed: it’d be MySpace 2.0, a ghost town for millennials waxing nostalgic.

Still, some sharks smell blood in the water. Billionaire Frank McCourt and former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin have rallied a consortium with over $20 billion in informal commitments to snap up TikTok’s US operations.
A Perfect Storm of Lawsuits

TikTok isn’t going down without a fight and it’s bringing allies to the battlefield. The company’s legal challenge has been bundled with lawsuits from several content creators, who argue that losing the platform would gut their livelihoods, and conservative influencers who claim a ban would silence their political speech. TikTok, ever the sugar daddy, is footing the legal bills for its creators — a savvy PR move if ever there was one.

The Clock is Ticking

If TikTok’s Hail Mary appeal to the Supreme Court fails, it’ll be up to President Trump’s Justice Department to enforce the ban. That means app stores would have to scrub TikTok from their offerings, and hosting services would be barred from supporting it.

And what happens to the millions of creators, small businesses, and teenagers who’ve turned TikTok into a cultural juggernaut? Well, they’ll probably migrate to Instagram Reels or YouTube Shorts—platforms that coincidentally happen to be owned by US tech giants who’ve been salivating at the thought of TikTok’s demise.

This is far from over.

Reclaim The Net needs your help

If you value free speech and privacy, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Each issue we publish is a commitment to defend these critical rights, providing insights and actionable information to protect and promote liberty in the digital age.

Despite our wide readership, less than 0.2% of our readers contribute financially. With your support, we can do more than just continue; we can amplify voices that are often suppressed and spread the word about the urgent issues of censorship and surveillance.

Consider making a modest donation — just $5, or whatever amount you can afford. Your contribution will empower us to reach more people, educate them about these pressing issues, and engage them in our collective cause.

Thank you for considering a contribution. Each donation not only supports our operations but also strengthens our efforts to challenge injustices and advocate for those who cannot speak out.

Thank you

Make a one-time donation