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.
As noted by the Trudeau government, plastic substitutes contribute to lower air quality and “typically have higher climate change impacts” due to higher GHG emissions.
Recently at the White House, President Donald Trump signed an executive order reversing the Biden administration’s plan to phase out plastic straws. The Trudeau government, however, continues with its plan to ban single-use plastics, even though this prohibition will have minimal impact worldwide, will actually increase waste in Canada, and force a transition to alternatives that impose greater environmental harm. Rather than doubling down on a flawed policy, the next federal government should reverse Trudeau’s plastic ban.
In 2021, the Trudeau government classified plastic items as “toxic,” paving the way for the ban on the manufacturing, importing and selling of checkout bags, cutlery, stir sticks and straws—all single-use plastics. In 2023, the Federal Court deemed the designation “unreasonable and unconstitutional”—but the Trudeau government defended the measure and is appealing, with a ruling expected this year.
According to the latest available data, Canada’s contributes 0.04 per cent to global plastic waste. The United States contributes 0.43 per cent—more than 10 times Canada’s share. But neither country is a major contributor to global plastic waste.
According to a 2024 article published in Nature, a leading scientific journal, no western country ranks among the top 90 global plastic polluters, thanks to their near-total waste collection and controlled disposal systems. Conversely, eight countries—India, Nigeria, Indonesia, China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Russia and Brazil—generate more than half of global plastic waste. And nearly 75 per cent of the world’s ocean plastic comes from Asia with only six countries (Philippines, India, Malaysia, China, Indonesia and Myanmar) accounting for most of the world’s ocean plastic pollution.
The Trudeau government’s own science assessment, cited in the court appeal, states that 99 per cent of Canada’s plastic waste is already disposed of safely through recycling, incinerating and environmentally-friendly landfills. Despite these facts, plastic has become a target for blanket restrictions without fully considering its benefits or the downsides of switching to alternatives.
Consider this. Plastics are lightweight, durable and indispensable to modern life. From medical devices, food packaging, construction materials, textiles, electronics and agricultural equipment, plastics play a critical role in sectors that improve living standards.
Alternatives to plastic come with their own environmental cost. Again, according to the government’s own analysis, banning single-use plastics will actually increase waste generation rather than reduce it. While the government expects to remove 1.5 million tonnes of plastics by 2032 with the prohibition, it will generate nearly twice as much that weight in waste from alternatives such as paper, wood and aluminum over the same period. Put simply, the ban will result in more, not less, waste in Canada.
And there’s more. Studies suggest that plastic substitutes such as paper are heavier, require more water and energy to be produced, demand more energy to transport, contribute to greater smog formation, present more ozone depletion potential and result in higher greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
As noted by the Trudeau government, plastic substitutes contribute to lower air quality and “typically have higher climate change impacts” due to higher GHG emissions.
While plastic pollution is a pressing global environmental issue, Canada is not a major contributor to this problem. The rationale behind the Trudeau government’s plastic ban lacks foundation, and as major economies including the U.S. go back to plastic, Canada’s plastic prohibition becomes increasingly futile. The next federal government, whoever that may be, should reverse this plastic ban, which will do more harm than good.
Julio Mejía
Policy Analyst
Elmira Aliakbari
Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute
Stocks sunk Thursday afternoon despite President Donald Trump’s decision to grant major exceptions to the 25% tariffs he put on Mexico and Canada earlier this week.
All three major U.S. market indexes were in the red by the time of Trump’s afternoon bill signing. Trump said Thursday in the Oval Office that steel and aluminum tariffs were on track for next week without modifications.
Trump shrugged off the stock losses, blaming the decline on “globalists.”
“I think it’s globalists that see how rich our country is going to be and don’t like it,” he said.
Trump has promised that his tariffs would shift the tax burden away from Americans and onto foreign countries, but tariffs are generally paid by the people who import the products. Those importers then have a choice: They can either absorb the loss or pass it on to consumers through higher prices. He also promised tariffs would make America “rich as hell.” And he’s used tariffs as a negotiating tactic to tighten border security.
Trump granted temporary tariff relief to both Canada and Mexico on Thursday by exempting goods under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement from tariffs until April 2.
On April 2, Trump plans to announce broader reciprocal tariffs against countries that impose tariffs on U.S. goods or keep U.S. goods out of their markets through other methods.
Since imposing his latest round of tariffs on top of trading partners this week, Trump has been paring them back. On Wednesday, Trump said the Big Three automakers – Ford Motor Co., General Motors Co. and Stellantis NV – would be exempt from his tariffs for a month.
In February, Trump took a step forward on his plan to put reciprocal tariffs on U.S. trading partners by signing a memo directing staff to come up with solutions in 180 days. Trump previously said he would put those tariffs in place on April 2 to avoid any confusion on April 1.
In his joint address to Congress on Tuesday, Trump said all countries would have to either make their products in the U.S. or be subject to tariffs.
“Whatever they tariff us, we tariff them. Whatever they tax us, we tax them,” Trump said. “If they do non-monetary tariffs to keep us out of their market, then we do non-monetary barriers to keep them out of our market. We will take in trillions of dollars and create jobs like we have never seen before.”
The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA, governs trade between the U.S. and its northern and southern neighbors. It went into force on July 1, 2020. Trump signed the deal. That agreement continued to allow for duty-free trading between the three countries for products largely made in North America.
U.S. goods and services trade with USMCA totaled an estimated $1.8 trillion in 2022. Exports were $789.7 billion and imports were $974.3 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade deficit with USMCA was $184.6 billion in 2022, according to the Office of the United States Trade Representative.
