From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Barry Cooper

Trudeau’s government suppresses dissent while selectively applying justice

Niccolò Machiavelli once wrote, “We’re going to emancipate ourselves from mental slavery because while others might free the body, none but ourselves can free the mind.” Today, Canadians are discovering just how difficult that is when government deception, media control and ideological overreach shape public discourse.

For over a decade, the Government of Canada has engaged in a campaign of misinformation, thought control and regulatory overreach, eroding public trust.

The COVID-19 response, media subsidies, regulatory censorship and suppression of dissent have created a de-factualized world where policy failures are covered up, critics are silenced and the government’s version of reality is reinforced through propaganda.

A majority of Canadians no longer believe their government. In a recent Ekos Research survey, 51 per cent of respondents said they distrust government decision-making, with that number climbing to 64 per cent in Alberta. In Quebec, 43 per cent distrust the government—a slightly lower figure but still significant.

Public faith in media is even worse. According to an Ipsos survey for the CRTC, only 32 per cent of Canadians trust that information provided by news media is accurate and impartial. In Alberta, only 24 per cent trust journalists. These numbers mirror those in the United States, where trust in legacy media is also at an all-time low. But instead of addressing why Canadians are losing faith in their institutions, the Trudeau government’s response has been to tighten control over public discourse rather than regain credibility.

Rather than correcting course, Ottawa has focused on “correcting” citizens’ thinking. Last year, Treasury Board President Anita Anand stated that government agencies must counter “misinformation and disinformation” through the Communications Community Once, a federal initiative aimed at shaping public perception rather than fixing policy failures.

At the same time, the government has entrenched its financial grip on media organizations. Bill C-18—the Online News Act—forced Big Tech to pay Canadian news organizations, making media outlets more financially dependent on Ottawa. Bill C-11—the Online Streaming Act—expanded CRTC regulatory control over digital platforms, including independent media and user-generated content. The Changing Narratives Fund, announced by the Heritage Department, provides taxpayer-funded incentives for newsrooms that push preferred narratives. As a result, the government now funds up to 50 per cent of newsroom salaries, compromising journalistic independence.

Meanwhile, alternative and dissenting voices face regulatory roadblocks that limit their reach.

This tightening of government control over information is part of a broader trend: suppressing opposition. The truckers’ convoy protests in 2022 demonstrated how far the government is willing to go. The Emergencies Act, originally designed for wartime use, was invoked against peaceful demonstrators opposing vaccine mandates. Instead of engaging with dissenting voices, the government labelled truckers as extremists, and there is circumstantial evidence that provocateurs were used to discredit the protest.

The legacy media amplified this false narrative, further reinforcing public distrust.

Since then, new laws have further expanded the government’s ability to police speech. Bill C-63—the Online Harms Act—proposes pre-emptive ones and restrictions on individuals based on potential future speech, forcing social media platforms to remove “harmful” content as defined by the government without parliamentary oversight. The bill also allows for ones of up to $50,000 for undefined “hate speech” violations. These measures fundamentally alter Canada’s legal tradition, shifting from punishing actual crimes to punishing possible future offences—a hallmark of totalitarian governance.

At the same time, the government has failed to take real action against foreign interference in Canada’s democracy. The 2024 NSICOP report revealed that some Canadian MPs actively collaborated with foreign governments to influence policy, the Chinese Communist Party manipulated nomination processes in safe electoral districts, and the Trudeau government ignored intelligence warnings and downplayed concerns.

Yet, when Trudeau was confronted at the 2024 G7 summit, he refused to confirm whether any Liberal MPs were involved, citing “national security.”

Contrast this with Trudeau’s aggressive stance toward India. While suppressing details about China’s election interference, the government publicly accused Indian diplomats of supporting violence in Canada, even leaking classified intelligence to the Washington Post. Instead of treating all foreign influence as a national security threat, the government selectively applies its policies based on political interests.

This contradiction is not an accident—it is part of a larger ideological framework. Trudeau has called Canada a “post-national state,” a phrase that explains much about his government’s priorities. National interests take a back seat to globalist policies, while ideological commitments override economic realities.

Energy policy is a prime example. Canada produces just 1.5 per cent of global CO2 emissions, yet Alberta’s energy sector is being dismantled while China and India expand fossil fuel production. Meanwhile, censorship laws are defended as “protecting democracy,” even as government-funded media become more reliant on Ottawa. These policies are not based on practical governance—they serve ideological commitments divorced from real-world consequences.

The Trudeau government is attempting to reshape Canada into an ideological state where dissent is punished, narratives are controlled and opposition is stifled under bureaucratic rule. But history has shown that such control is never absolute. No matter how much propaganda is pushed through media subsidies, censorship laws or “narrative correction” initiatives, people eventually recognize the truth.

The growing distrust in government, media and institutions is not an accident —it is a response to deception. If Canada’s political class refuses to change course, citizens will look elsewhere for leadership, truth and accountability.

And no amount of censorship or government messaging campaigns will stop them.

Read: New Essay By Barry Cooper Exposes Trudeau Government’s Web Of Deception (16 pages)

Barry Cooper is a professor of political science at the University of Calgary. Author of 35 books and 200 studies, his book on terrorism was recovered by Seal Team Six during their visit to the Osama bin Laden compound in Abbottabad in May 2011.

From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew D. Mitchell

President Trump has made deregulation a priority and charged Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency with suggesting ways to cut red tape. Some progressives are cautiously supportive of deregulation. More should be.

From Jimmy Carter to Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), progressives once saw the wisdom of cutting red tape — especially if that tape tied the hands of consumers and would-be competitors in order to privilege industry insiders.

After the election, Sen. John Fetterman’s (D-Pa.) former chief of staff, Adam Jentleson, encouraged Democrats to embrace “supply-side progressivism,” calling for “limited deregulation that advances liberal policy goals.” He pointed to successful Democratic candidates like Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.) and Jared Golden (D-Maine), both of whom have raised the alarm about overregulation.

Vice President Kamala Harris recognized that the regulatory state sometimes hurts those whom it is supposed to help. In campaign proposals to address the housing crisis, she vowed to “take down barriers and cut red tape, including at the state and local levels.”

Cautious Democratic support for deregulation may surprise those who think only of the Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) approach. Warren once claimed that “deregulation” was “just a code word for ‘let the rich guys do whatever they want.’”

In reality, regulations often help the rich guys at the expense of consumers and fair competition. New Deal regulations, for example, forced prices up in more than 500 industries, causing consumers to pay more for necessities like food and clothing when a quarter of the workforce was unemployed. Economists have documented similar price-raising regulation in agricultural, finance and urban transportation. In other cases, regulations require customers to buy certain products such as health insurance. Licensing rules protect incumbent service providers in hundreds of occupations despite little evidence that they protect consumers from harm.

More subtly, regulations can protect industry insiders by limiting the quantity of available services. State certificate-of-need laws in health care, for example, limit dozens of medical services in two-thirds of states, raising prices, throttling access, and undermining the quality of care.

That’s one reason why Rhode Island’s Democratic governor wants to reform his state’s certificate-of-need laws.

If you don’t believe that regulations protect big businesses instead of their customers, take a closer look at how firms lobby. In 2012, the National Electrical Manufacturers Association lobbied to maintain a ban on incandescent light bulbs. Why? Because it raised the costs of smaller, rival firms that specialized in making the cheaper bulbs. Local car dealerships lobby to preserve state restrictions on direct car sales, which limit potential competitors that sell online.

In international comparisons, researchers find that heavier regulatory burdens depress productivity growth and contribute to income inequality.

In the U.S., the accumulation of regulations between 1980 and 2012 is estimated to have reduced income per person by about $13,000. Since low-income households tend to spend a greater share of their incomes on highly regulated products, they bear the heaviest burden.

Progressives can help break the symbiotic relationship between special interests and overregulation. Indeed, they’ve often been the first to identify the problem.

Writing a century ago in his book “The New Freedom,” President Woodrow Wilson warned that “regulatory capture” would grow as government itself grew: “If the government is to tell big businessmen how to run their business, then don’t you see that big businessmen have to get closer to the government even than they are now? Don’t you see that they must capture the government, in order not to be restrained too much by it?”

The capture Wilson warned of took root. By the early 1970s, progressive consumer advocates Mark Green and Ralph Nader were noting that “regulated industries are often in clear control of the regulatory process.” The problem was so acute that President Jimmy Carter tapped economist Alfred Kahn to do something about it.

In his research, Kahn meticulously showed that when “a [regulatory] commission is responsible for the performance of an industry, it is under never completely escapable pressure to protect the health of the companies it regulates.” As head of the Civil Aeronautics Board, Kahn moved to dismantle regulations that sustained anti-consumer airline cartels. Then he helped abolish the board altogether.

Liberals such as Nader and the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) supported the move. Kennedy’s top committee lawyer, future Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, later noted that the only ones opposed to deregulation were regulators and industry executives.

Their reform efforts unleashed competitive forces in aviation that had previously been impossible, opening up airline routes, lowering fares and increasing options for consumers.

It’s an embarrassing truth for both Democrats and Republicans that none of Carter’s successors, including Ronald Reagan, have pushed back as much as he did against the regulatory state.

Trump faces an uphill battle. He’ll stand a better chance if progressives acknowledge once again that lower-income Americans stand to gain from deregulation.