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 Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Maureen McCall

With U.S. tariffs looming, Premiers push for border security, pipelines, and interprovincial trade reform

After more than eight years of federal policies that have challenged the oil and gas industry, imagining Canadian energy policy in a post-Trudeau era is no easy task.

However, recent meetings addressing the threat of United States tariffs may offer hope for revisiting energy policies through provincial collaboration.

The January 2025 Council of the Federation meetings, attended by all 13 provincial and territorial premiers, produced several key value propositions.

• After spending a week in Washington, D.C., meeting with Donald Trump and his administration, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith highlighted the provinces’ resource strengths.
• British Columbia can leverage germanium—a critical mineral essential in defence applications that China will no longer export to the U.S.
• Saskatchewan’s uranium supply offers an alternative to reliance on Kazakhstan and Russia.
• Canadian provinces can provide resources that align with U.S. energy goals.

Any provincial initiatives must also address U.S. priorities, including tighter border security and increased defence spending.

To meet U.S. energy security needs, Canada must remove policy barriers hindering development. Policies like the Clean Energy Regulations (CER), the emissions cap, and the net-zero vehicle mandate (starting January 2026) are significant challenges. Provinces must collaborate to amend or remove these policies, ensuring they do not survive the next federal election. Alberta and Saskatchewan have already opposed the CER, and the proposed emissions cap remains under review.

The federal government acknowledges that these policies must be re-evaluated to avoid obstructing shared energy goals, including:

• carbon pollution pricing
• methane regulations
• clean fuel standards
• carbon capture incentives
• emissions reduction funding
• clean growth programs
• best-in-class guidelines for new oil and gas projects under federal review.

The U.S.’s energy deficit—20 million barrels consumed daily versus 13 million produced—creates an opportunity for Canada. Achieving this requires dismantling interprovincial trade barriers and developing infrastructure projects from coast to coast. The Council meetings have initiated such collaboration, with ongoing bilateral discussions expected. Infrastructure projects like pipelines to the East and West coasts would enable Canada to supply the U.S. and other global markets, reducing reliance on hostile regimes.

Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Andrew Furey stated: “I see energy as Canada’s queen in the game of chess. We don’t need to expose our queen this early. The opposition needs to know that the queen exists, but they don’t need to know what we’re going to do with the queen.”

Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith have rejected measures that would affect Canada’s energy exports to the U.S.

“When you look at the pipeline system, how oil is actually transported into the U.S. and back into Canada,” Moe said, “it would be very difficult, and I think impossible operationally to even consider.” Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew emphasized the importance of national unity, stating that energy decisions must not fracture the country. Ontario Premier Doug Ford warned that tariffs could cost Ontario 500,000 jobs, while P.E.I. Premier Dennis King noted that tariffs could cost 25 per cent of P.E.I.’s GDP and 14,000 jobs—a catastrophic loss for the province.

The Council meetings highlighted three key priorities:

• Demonstrate Canada’s commitment to border security and meet its two per cent GDP NATO target.
• Build oil and gas pipelines east and west to diversify markets and remove interprovincial trade barriers, enabling a stronger national economy.
• Secure provincial consent before imposing export tariffs or restrictions that could harm individual provinces.

This emerging consensus underscores that Canada’s energy future depends on proactive, constructive diplomacy with U.S. lawmakers, supported by a unified provincial front and practical energy policies that benefit both nations.

Maureen McCall is an energy business analyst and Fellow at the Frontier Center for Public Policy. She writes on energy issues for EnergyNow and the BOE Report. She has 20 years of experience as a business analyst for national and international energy companies in Canada.