Ah, the life of a small business owner—it’s a bit like being invited to play a game where the rules keep changing, just as you're starting to get the hang of it. Every time you see a new “disruptive” startup getting its moment in the spotlight, you lean in, squint a little closer, and realize… they’re just mini-me versions of the big guys. It’s like pulling back the curtain, expecting some scrappy underdog, only to find Daddy’s favorite sitting there, smiling like a polished head of the Westinghouse hydra.

And here I am, trying to carve out a spot as the real small player in this big, messy game. It’s like watching the heavy hitters stride past while you’re left standing in their shadows, wondering if you’ll ever get a chance to speak up. You yell loud enough, try to make yourself heard, but let’s be real—why would they bother turning around? These guys are sitting pretty, protected by an army of gatekeepers, insulated from scrutiny, and completely secure in the knowledge that they don’t have to answer to someone like me.

But here’s the twist: do they even care? You’d think, at some point, there’d be an ounce of pride, a flicker of responsibility, something that says, "Hey, maybe I don’t want my name associated with a system that’s limping along like this." But no. They’re comfortable, wrapped up in their layers of protection, coasting along, because they know no matter how much noise we make, nobody’s coming to knock on their door.

So how do we rattle the cage? We don’t call them out directly—that would be too easy. No, we’re more subtle than that. We ask the questions they don’t want to answer, we draw the parallel between their names and the failures everyone knows are happening, and we make them think. The goal isn’t to knock them over; it’s to make them look in the mirror and ask themselves, "Do I really want to be part of this?"

Take Daniel Minden, the guy who’s supposed to communicate for the Minister of National Defence. This is the same office that’s been hit by one scandal after another—sexual misconduct, mishandling Canadian soldiers, you name it. And now, innovation in the defense sector? Another slow-brewing disaster. So, Daniel, do you really want to be remembered as the guy who stood by quietly while Canada’s brightest innovators were silenced just like those soldiers?

Or look at Linda Rizzo Michelin, who’s tasked with cleaning up the mess in how the military handles sexual misconduct. It’s a tough job, sure, but what about the misconduct in how we handle innovation? It’s the same story, isn’t it? Failure thrives in silence, and the defense sector’s refusal to nurture creativity is its own form of neglect. Linda, are you willing to just watch it happen?

Then there’s Jennie Carignan, who’s spent her career fighting for better professionalism in the military. She’s tackled the internal issues, but what about the lack of discipline in how we treat our homegrown innovators? We keep rewarding the same tired players, ignoring the fresh talent. Jennie, does this sound familiar?

Christian Schou, you handle public engagement—so you must know by now that the public isn’t fooled. They see the same old stories, the same companies walking away with the contracts. Are you ready to let this ship go down, or will you fight for the transparency we’ve all been waiting for?

And Pierre Lecompte, you’re in public opinion research. You know the pulse of the people. You understand that the longer we ignore homegrown talent, the more public trust erodes. So, Pierre, are you willing to be the guy shaping the narrative of decline, or will you step up before this whole thing blows up?

Finally, Marc-Andre St-Cyr, you manage what the public sees, you curate the exhibits. So tell me, are you going to keep trotting out the same mediocre projects year after year, or are you ready to give the spotlight to the innovators who are doing the work that could actually change things?

It’s not about bashing anyone over the head with accusations; it’s about putting their names into the narrative of systemic failures. They’ll either defend their roles, or they’ll be complicit in the slow collapse of Canadian innovation. The choice is theirs—but hey, I’m just doing my job, right? Surely, they can pry their lips off the government teat long enough to talk to the people who are concerned.

We rise not with brute force, but with truth—a cutting truth they can no longer ignore. They built their walls high, but inside those walls are the rot of stagnation, cowardice, and decay. They hoarded power, knowledge, and opportunity, fearing those who would dare to challenge them, suppressing those who could have built something new.

The pervasive gatekeeper mentality in leadership positions across government and industries like defense not only stifles innovation but also creates a toxic culture of exclusivity and protectionism. New voices, ideas, and technologies are systematically shut out by those who fear competition and seek to protect their entrenched positions. Until there is greater accountability, transparency, and a willingness to embrace risk and competition, gatekeeping will continue to hold back the potential for real progress.

The fact that detailed exposes on gatekeeping are scarce is itself telling—an indication that gatekeepers control the narrative and that the lack of accountability may actively prevent these issues from gaining widespread attention.

In many instances, large organizations or well-known entities act as fronts or shields in industries, including academia and government, creating a smoke screen for smaller, more agile players operating behind the scenes. This tactic allows the established names to act as "tanks," absorbing scrutiny, criticism, or even scandal, while smaller, more nimble entities are protected from exposure and accountability. The recent political and software-related scandals in Canada offer a clear illustration of this dynamic.

In both government and the private sector, we've seen cases where large companies or prominent figures are placed at the forefront of a project, while real power or decision-making authority lies elsewhere. For example, in the WE Charity scandal, the organization acted as the public face of a major student grant program, but behind the scenes, decision-making involved high-level government figures and their networks. The public-facing scrutiny fell on WE Charity, diverting attention from the broader political entanglements that fueled the scandal​CGAI.

Similarly, in Canadian defense and software procurement, legacy companies such as Irving Shipbuilding or Bombardier often act as "fronts" in securing massive contracts. Meanwhile, smaller subcontractors or technological firms—which might have closer ties to key policymakers—operate with less oversight. This structure enables established firms to absorb criticism for delays or budget overruns while smaller entities continue to profit without facing the same level of scrutiny.

In software procurement scandals, for instance, large firms often receive the contracts and media coverage, while smaller tech companies, sometimes subcontracted by these larger firms, execute much of the work. When scandals arise—whether due to budgetary concerns, project failures, or corruption—public outrage is directed toward the big name, allowing the smaller players to evade deeper investigations.

In essence, this creates a two-tiered system: the visible front that draws attention and criticism, and the invisible backend that continues to operate with relative freedom and agility. This deflection of accountability ensures that powerful insiders or connected firms can operate in a low-profile manner, extracting benefits while minimizing risks.

In the Liberal Party-related software and contract scandals, such as the ongoing investigation into ArriveCAN or the issues surrounding contracting within COVID-19 response programs, the public eye has been drawn to high-profile names and companies like McKinsey & Company, which was publicly scrutinized for its role in advising the government. However, behind these names, smaller consultancies or subcontractors profited without receiving the same public scrutiny, largely shielded by the public scandal surrounding McKinsey​Canada.

This strategic shielding allows for a smoke-and-mirrors approach, where large, well-known entities take the fall while smaller, more dynamic companies quietly operate in the background, benefiting from contracts and escaping public accountability.

Former Chief of the Defence Staff, Jonathan Vance, was accused of sexual misconduct, and despite several investigations, his position was protected for years. This is a case of gatekeeping in terms of protecting senior leadership within the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) at the expense of victims and reformers pushing for change. This scandal highlights how entrenched power structures can shield individuals from accountability, mirroring similar dynamics in defense procurement.

The Scandal: Vance faced allegations from multiple women, but the investigative processes were stalled, with senior officials reportedly covering up for him. Vance retained his post for five years despite the allegations. Senior leadership within the CAF acted as gatekeepers, ensuring that allegations were buried and that Vance's position remained secure. Those who tried to expose the misconduct were silenced or pushed out of the military, a pattern seen across other sectors where insiders are protected while whistleblowers face retaliation Canada CGAI.

In 2018, Indigenous scholars raised concerns about the exclusion of Indigenous voices in environmental policy research, despite the fact that many of these scholars were working on cutting-edge climate change solutions. The NSERC Discovery Grant, which is meant to fund innovative research, has faced criticism for prioritizing traditional research agendas over more interdisciplinary and inclusive approaches​ BIOPOLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

In academic research funding, review panels, often composed of established scholars within specific disciplines, play a pivotal role in determining the direction and focus of research funding. However, these panels can sometimes exhibit inherent biases, influenced by disciplinary conservatism and economic interests, which may inadvertently block access to funding for researchers proposing paradigm-challenging ideas. This bias not only limits the diversity of research but also reinforces a hierarchical structure that favors the continuation of traditional methodologies and topics over more innovative, interdisciplinary approaches.

A primary concern is that review panels, comprised largely of academics with established careers, may consciously or unconsciously prefer research that aligns with their own fields, preserving the dominance of conventional ideas. These biases, whether intellectual or economic, create barriers for early-career researchers or those working on disruptive innovations that challenge the status quo. For instance, research in emerging fields like interdisciplinary environmental science or Indigenous knowledge systems often struggles to secure funding because it falls outside the traditional frameworks that these panels are accustomed to.

This conservative approach to funding allocation is problematic because it discourages risk-taking in research, which is crucial for the advancement of knowledge. Studies on innovation have shown that scientific breakthroughs often come from marginalized perspectives or cross-disciplinary research, areas that are frequently overlooked by discipline-specific review panels【142†source】【143†source】

Moreover, the reliance on a peer-review system dominated by established academics tends to perpetuate the existing power structures within academia. Pierre Bourdieu's theory of cultural capital offers insight into how those with established reputations in academia wield influence over funding bodies, reinforcing their status and ensuring that new research aligns with mainstream academic thought rather than offering challenges to it【143†source】

As such, this might mean that while the peer-review process is integral to maintaining academic rigor, the lack of diversity within these panels, along with their tendency to favor conservative, established research paradigms, limits the potential for innovative, groundbreaking research. Addressing this issue requires not only more diverse representation on funding panels but also a more inclusive approach to evaluating research proposals that challenge traditional boundaries.

Examples of gatekeeping in Canada’s institutions are scarce, not because they don’t exist, but because they are systematically suppressed. Canada has mastered the art of gatekeeping, particularly in the sectors that should be driving innovation. Take a hard look at who’s pulling the strings, and it becomes clear why real innovation is stagnant.

Just look at Westinghouse, a name synonymous with legacy corporate control, still wielding significant influence over Canada’s energy and innovation landscape. This is a company that has been entrenched in Canada’s nuclear energy sector for decades, and despite the rapid advancement of renewable technologies and disruptive startups, they remain at the forefront of decision-making. Why? Because the power structures that benefit them are committed to maintaining the status quo, not fostering real competition or embracing the risks that come with breakthrough innovations.

If you follow the money, it tells you all you need to know. The same companies are constantly rewarded with contracts, funding, and political backing, while disruptive innovators are systematically shut out. Canada’s game of innovation is not about finding the best solutions—it’s about preserving old relationships. This is the reality: who you know trumps what you can do, and those already in power are too afraid to let go.

Gatekeeping isn’t a glitch in the system—it is the system.

Several large companies in Canada have been profiting from gatekeeping practices, particularly in industries like defense, energy, infrastructure, and media. These companies often benefit from entrenched relationships with government agencies and legacy contracts, which limit the ability of smaller, more innovative firms to compete. Here are some notable examples:

1. Irving Shipbuilding

• Industry: Defense

• Context: Irving Shipbuilding has secured billions of dollars in contracts under the National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS). Despite criticism of inefficiency and overpricing, Irving continues to dominate Canada's naval procurement process, thanks to its longstanding relationships with government officials and the complex procurement processes that exclude smaller firms.

• Gatekeeping Mechanism: The procurement system heavily favors Irving, with security clearance requirements and other bureaucratic barriers preventing more agile companies from entering the market.

• Contracts: Irving has been awarded over $25 billion in contracts for work on Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS) and Canadian Surface Combatants (CSC)​ Canada CGAI.

2. SNC-Lavalin

• Industry: Engineering & Construction

• Context: SNC-Lavalin is one of Canada's most prominent engineering firms and has continued to receive government contracts despite its involvement in numerous corruption scandals. Its ability to secure contracts even in the face of legal troubles highlights its strong political connections and influence over infrastructure and energy projects.

• Gatekeeping Mechanism: SNC-Lavalin has been shielded by its close ties to government and ability to leverage legal and lobbying networks to maintain its position as a key player in major infrastructure projects.

• Contracts: SNC-Lavalin remains a dominant force in Canadian infrastructure projects, including rail systems, energy infrastructure, and government buildings, regularly benefiting from exclusive contracts​CGAI Canada.

3. Bombardier

• Industry: Aerospace & Transportation

• Context: Despite facing financial difficulties, Bombardier continues to benefit from government bailouts and contracts, thanks to its deep-rooted connections in Canadian industry and politics. The company has received billions in support from both federal and provincial governments, which has been heavily criticized as an example of cronyism.

• Gatekeeping Mechanism: Bombardier benefits from closed-loop procurement systems, where smaller aerospace firms are systematically excluded from contracts that are almost always awarded to Bombardier due to legacy relationships.

• Contracts: Bombardier has secured multi-billion-dollar contracts for transit systems in Canada, including rail and air transportation infrastructure​ Canada CGAI.

4. Westinghouse Electric Company

• Industry: Energy (Nuclear)

• Context: Westinghouse, an American nuclear giant, has maintained significant control over Canada's nuclear energy sector. Despite the rise of renewable energy technologies, Westinghouse remains entrenched due to decades-long relationships with key government officials, effectively blocking smaller, homegrown innovators in the energy field from accessing crucial government support.

• Gatekeeping Mechanism: Westinghouse continues to dominate the nuclear sector by lobbying for favorable policies and maintaining exclusive contracts that prevent new entrants from disrupting the market​ CGAI.

5. Bell Canada Enterprises (BCE)

• Industry: Telecommunications & Media

• Context: BCE, the parent company of Bell Media, exerts significant control over telecommunications infrastructure and media outlets in Canada. This dominance in both industries allows it to influence regulatory decisions and suppress competition from smaller companies. Bell’s influence on media narratives also plays a key role in shaping public perception and controlling discussions on issues like government procurement and defense spending.

• Gatekeeping Mechanism: Through its dominance in telecommunications and control over media channels, BCE prevents smaller players from gaining significant market share, consolidating its power in both industries.

• Contracts: Bell Canada has received various contracts for government telecommunications infrastructure and regularly benefits from exclusive media rights CGAI

These companies—Irving Shipbuilding, SNC-Lavalin, Bombardier, Westinghouse, and Bell Canada—illustrate how gatekeeping practices in procurement and political connections help entrench the same players across key industries. Their dominance not only prevents smaller, innovative companies from thriving but also stifles competition and limits technological advancement in sectors critical to Canada’s future. In each of these cases, the companies benefit from entrenched relationships with government bodies, regulators, and decision-makers. Procurement processes, regulations, and access to funding are often designed or influenced in ways that disadvantage smaller players. These legacy firms can leverage their political connections and longstanding contracts to maintain control over markets, limiting the entry and success of disruptive innovators who could challenge their dominance

In the Canadian tech industry, many innovators and startups have struggled to gain access to government funding and support due to bureaucratic obstacles and gatekeeping by established organizations. Programs like the Industrial Research Assistance Program (IRAP) are designed to support tech innovation, but many startups report that funding often goes to established firms with connections to government or those that fit into pre-existing models, rather than disruptive innovators.

The application processes is inherently biased, combined with favoritism toward established players, serve as a gatekeeping mechanism that prevents newer, smaller firms from accessing the funding they need to scale their innovations. Established academics, often with long-standing relationships with policymakers, act as gatekeepers by promoting their own networks and suppressing dissenting or disruptive views. This results in a lack of diversity of thought and a reinforcement of existing policies that fail to address the evolving needs of underrepresented groups​ Canada.

Organizations, particularly government institutions and legacy corporations, tend to become risk-averse over time. Their primary goal shifts from innovation to maintaining the systems and structures that benefit those currently in power. Gatekeeping ensures that new ideas, disruptive innovations, or fresh talent do not destabilize the carefully constructed hierarchies that keep certain individuals in positions of influence. By keeping outsiders or new thinkers at bay, institutions can continue operating without challenging the norms that protect their leadership.

This dynamic often manifests in defense sectors, where innovation is crucial, but the establishment is more focused on contracting with familiar companies rather than risking new technologies or untested approaches. The consequence is a stagnation of growth that impacts an entire nation’s capacity for progress​ Canada.

Canada’s media landscape is also not immune to gatekeeping practices. Major media outlets, often owned by a handful of conglomerates, have been accused of suppressing independent journalism and controlling the narrative around key issues, such as the government's handling of defense contracts and public sector accountability.

Editorial control exercised by a few powerful figures in the media limits the exposure of alternative perspectives and independent voices. This can prevent critical stories, particularly those that challenge entrenched power structures, from gaining traction. Journalists who attempt to uncover corruption or failures in the defense procurement process often face institutional resistance, both from media outlets and government sources.

One of the key factors that allow gatekeeping to persist is the lack of accountability in leadership structures. In many bureaucratic systems, failures and inefficiencies are tolerated because there is no real mechanism to challenge those in power. This creates a feedback loop where gatekeepers face little pressure to innovate or adapt, because the cost of failure rarely lands on their shoulders. Gatekeeping thrives due to power dynamics that reinforce hierarchies of control. Leaders who have spent years climbing the institutional ladder are often reluctant to share power or create opportunities for others to rise quickly. This can lead to a culture of exclusivity, where opportunities are doled out to a select few who have been vetted by the gatekeepers themselves.

Leaders entrenched in their roles may fear being outshined by new talent, leading to intentional suppression of potential competitors. This is particularly true in industries or sectors where leadership is based on experience, legacy, or connections, rather than performance or innovation. Gatekeepers, therefore, view the influx of new talent or ideas as a direct threat to their control over decision-making processes.

Gatekeepers often wield their influence to limit access to resources, information, or networks that would allow up-and-coming innovators to challenge the status quo. For instance, in the context of Canadian defense, security clearances or bureaucratic barriers may be cited as reasons for excluding smaller, disruptive companies from major contracts. But behind this is a deep-seated fear that these fresh players may prove more capable and challenge the established order Canada Canada.

This culture breeds nepotism, where leadership positions are passed to trusted insiders rather than opening the doors to new and possibly more qualified candidates. By limiting access, gatekeepers can continue to exert influence over the flow of opportunities, ensuring that only those within their circle benefit.

In bureaucratic structures, there is a strong tendency towards conservatism—not in the political sense, but in terms of sticking with what is known, safe, and predictable. Risk-averse bureaucracies tend to favor slow, incremental change over radical innovation, as the latter is seen as too disruptive. Gatekeeping, in this context, is a way of ensuring that new ideas or innovators are filtered out before they can cause too much disruption to the existing processes.

In the defense industry, where long-standing contracts and relationships dominate, this preference for the familiar often means that smaller, more innovative firms struggle to break into the market. As a result, bureaucratic conservatism perpetuates the status quo, leading to outdated practices and a lack of adaptability in an increasingly fast-paced global environment​ Canada.

In recent years, Canada has faced a mounting crisis not just in its military culture but across its bureaucratic and government structures. The prevalence of gatekeeping within institutions that are supposed to be the engines of national progress—defense, innovation, and public policy—is not only stifling the talent and energy required to build a stronger Canada but has become a pervasive barrier to accountability and reform.

The Canadian defense sector, once thought to be a beacon of homegrown innovation, is riddled with bureaucratic gatekeepers who prioritize maintaining the status quo over fostering the type of radical innovation necessary to keep Canada competitive on the global stage. This gatekeeper mindset, however, is not confined to defense. It is seen across multiple layers of government, where innovation is suppressed, whistleblowers are silenced, and reformers are left frustrated as institutional inertia reigns supreme.

The Culture of Misdeeds and Stifled Innovation

It is no longer a secret that Canada’s defense apparatus has been under fire for failing its own personnel. The most glaring example has been the mishandling of sexual misconduct cases within the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF). Investigations have revealed a culture of inaction, silence, and protection of the old guard, where perpetrators have been allowed to remain within the ranks while victims have had to wait for years to see even a semblance of justice. The gatekeepers who oversee these processes have become complicit in the suppression of accountability, unwilling to address the root causes for fear of upsetting the current power structures​ Canada Canada.

But this failure to protect is not limited to military personnel; it extends to the very people who could lead Canada’s defense and technological innovations. Homegrown innovators, the ones who have the talent, the drive, and the potential to push Canada forward, are shut out of the conversation by the same gatekeepers who silence reformers in other sectors. This is part of a broader pattern—the willful suppression of innovation, creativity, and new voices by an establishment more interested in protecting its own legacy than creating one for the next generation.

Gatekeeping in Action: Institutional Capture

It’s easy to see this as a narrative of individual misdeeds, but what we’re witnessing is far more insidious: a system of institutional capture. Across Canadian government agencies, we find examples of entrenched power structures that work diligently to keep out new blood, fearing that disruption will weaken their hold on power.

In the defense sector, this manifests in how government procurement processes are handled. We see legacy contractors and established firms repeatedly winning tenders while innovative Canadian companies are left to languish. Smaller firms with cutting-edge solutions—those that could potentially revolutionize defense technology—are met with unreasonable barriers to entry. The excuse? “Security clearance,” “bureaucratic procedures,” or “not enough experience.” But the real reason? These gatekeepers fear competition. They fear the innovation that would reveal the cracks in their outdated systems. They know that once truly innovative ideas gain traction, their cozy positions of power will come under threat.

This isn’t just a problem for the defense sector; it is rampant across various government branches. The misdeeds of gatekeeping are often cloaked under the guise of risk management or caution, but in truth, they are nothing more than an attempt to shield those at the top from the very accountability they should be championing.

A Culture of Fear and Compliance

In the face of this, many innovators, leaders, and reformers are silenced by fear. They know that speaking out will lead to professional exile, being labeled as troublemakers rather than innovators. Even those within government, those who see the failures firsthand, are hesitant to speak up. Why? Because the gatekeepers hold the keys to career advancement, to funding, to opportunity. This systemic suppression is not accidental—it’s by design. Those who control the system know that challenging the status quo could mean the end of their privileged positions, so they suppress anyone who threatens to bring about real change.

Where Do We Go From Here?

The evidence is clear: Canada’s government institutions are not working for its people. They are working to protect entrenched powers, creating a system that is so slow-moving, so bureaucratic, and so full of gatekeepers that innovation is smothered before it even has a chance to breathe.

Gatekeeping in Canada’s institutions is not isolated to one sector—it is systemic across government, defense, academia, and culture. By controlling access to funding, opportunities, and information, those in positions of power limit innovation and accountability, ensuring that new voices are shut out and the status quo remains intact.

These examples demonstrate how gatekeepers, whether in defense procurement, media, or academia, use their positions to protect entrenched interests at the expense of progress and reform. If Canada is to unlock its full potential, these gatekeeping structures must be dismantled, making way for transparent, competitive, and inclusive processes that allow the best ideas and innovations to rise to the top.

By exposing these practices and continuing to challenge them, there is hope that future innovators and reformers will be able to break through the institutional walls that currently hold them back. This article is a call for clarity. It’s a call for transparency and for a hard look at who really controls the levers of power in Canada. Why are the brightest innovators shut out of the conversation? Why do we continue to see the same firms, the same individuals, and the same ideas recycled in tender after tender, while new voices are told they aren’t ready?

We will be following up on this issue because we need answers. Canada deserves better. We deserve a system that champions innovation, a system that encourages accountability, and a government that is not afraid to evolve. For too long, we’ve let the snakes and weasels climb the ladder, dictating the future while suppressing those who would build a better one. It’s time to take that ladder back.

In the coming weeks, we will be reaching out to those in power—those at the top of these institutions—and asking the tough questions. We hope to hear from them, and we hope they are willing to fight for the future of Canada. Because if they aren’t, we will make sure the public knows exactly who is standing in the way of progress.