Canada’s global innovation rankings are a reflection of the systemic controls embedded in its industrial and media structures. Much like the controlled narratives of repressive regimes, Canada’s public image as a transparent, progressive nation masks the deeper realities of gatekeeping and corporate dominance. This isn’t to say that Canada is an authoritarian state, but the similarities in structural control—particularly in industries that affect communication and information flow—are worth noting. The telecom, media, and innovation sectors are tightly controlled, not unlike the strategic industries in less free societies, and the result is a country where true innovation is suppressed in favor of consolidating power among the same key players.

Much like in postmodern critiques, where power and truth are seen as constantly manipulated constructs, Canada’s innovation landscape suffers from the same illusion of progress—a carefully managed narrative that serves the interests of a select few. The challenge is to deconstruct these narratives and question whether the innovation ecosystem is truly as free and dynamic as it appears, or if it is simply rearranging the deck chairs in a controlled environment.

Canada's innovation landscape, while rich with potential, often falls short due to layers of bureaucratic control and economic gatekeeping, particularly in sectors like telecommunications. Canada's regulatory framework is significantly restrictive compared to the U.S. or South Korea. For instance, foreign telecom ownership restrictions severely limit competition, keeping out players like AT&T or Verizon, which could otherwise offer better services at competitive prices​ C.D. Howe Institute McCarthy Tétrault.

This protectionist stance in the telecommunications industry is similar to the way North Korea controls its media and limits external influence. While not as extreme, Canada's regulatory environment certainly limits innovation by prioritizing established entities. Moreover, Canada ranks poorly in 3G and 4G mobile penetration, sitting far behind other OECD countries, including South Korea, which has become a global leader in technology and mobile innovation​ McCarthy Tétrault. The parallel lies in how tightly these structures are controlled to protect domestic interests, which ironically stifles the competition and innovation needed for global relevance.

Another factor at play is Canada's cultural attitude towards innovation. Studies show that Canada's relatively high power distance and conservative structures, such as long-term incumbency, further hinder true disruptive innovation​ Home. Meanwhile, the U.S. and South Korea excel in part due to their more competitive and open markets, fostering innovation that keeps them ahead globally.

In essence, Canada's rigid telecom and innovation policies create a self-limiting loop—an ecosystem where established players thrive and new entrants are systematically sidelined. Just as South Korea embraced openness and innovation to leap ahead, Canada needs to reassess these barriers to avoid falling further behind on the global stage.

Take North Korea, for example, where control is absolute and direct—censorship, government-controlled media, and absolute loyalty to the regime. In contrast, Canada’s approach is far more sophisticated. Instead of overtly controlling the narrative, Canada’s media and industrial giants use subtle gatekeeping mechanisms to shape discourse. It’s not like you’re going to see the Prime Minister plastered across every billboard—no, Canada prefers to maintain the illusion of freedom, while quietly ensuring that corporate lobbying and media ownership stay well within the hands of a select few.

It’s a bit like the way Japanese culture emphasizes harmony and subtlety. The real power moves happen behind the scenes, where polite nods and indirect suggestions keep the machine well-oiled. In Canada, we won’t outright block innovation—no, no. Instead, we’ll let it simmer just enough to seem progressive, but gatekeepers will ensure that only the established players get a seat at the table. It’s not "No, you can’t," but more like "Oh, have you considered not?"

Think about telecommunications. In North Korea, you can’t have a foreign cell number because the government says so. Simple, direct, oppressive. In Canada, it’s almost laughably indirect—sure, you can have a foreign number, but the process will be so convoluted, and the penalties so steep, that you’ll likely just stick with the homegrown giants. That’s Canadian control: polite, bureaucratic, and wrapped up in regulations that nobody really questions.

Even with social media, Canada doesn’t ban platforms outright—oh no, we just regulate them heavily, ensuring they comply with local standards, subtly controlling what content Canadians see, and creating an environment where foreign competition has to jump through hoops. It’s all very polite, very Canadian—but the effect is the same as North Korea’s more blunt approach: narratives are shaped, competition is stifled, and power stays where it’s meant to—within the homegrown elites.

So, while we laugh at the absurdities of North Korea, it’s worth remembering that in Canada, the same forces are at work, just with a bit more smoke and mirrors. Instead of barbed wire, we’ve got policies and procedures. Instead of a supreme leader, we’ve got telecom oligopolies. The result? A polite, gated version of the internet, telecoms, and media—all carefully designed to maintain the status quo without ever raising an eyebrow.

In essence, if North Korea is the overbearing parent who says, “No, because I said so,” then Canada is the charming aunt who says, “Oh dear, that might be a bit too complicated for you.” Both have their way of ensuring control, but only one will offer you a smile and a cup of tea while doing it.

Canadians may be naive to the extent of control that exists within their own country. While we aren’t dealing with outright propaganda, the way narratives are controlled through media and industry giants has a similarly dulling effect on public awareness and discourse. The PR game in Canada is strong enough that most people don't realize the structural barriers that exist for smaller innovators or the extent to which industrial giants protect their interests through government lobbying and regulatory capture.

Even in the digital sphere, Canada's level of control over global platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok is not immediately obvious to the average citizen. While these platforms are accessible in Canada, the versions available to users may differ from those in other countries due to compliance with Canadian content regulations and privacy laws. These adaptations, often subtle, ensure that platforms adhere to domestic policies while operating within Canada’s regulatory framework. The government’s efforts to control foreign influence in the digital landscape are often focused on curbing misinformation and monitoring bad actors, but this scrutiny does not always extend to domestic corporate interests, which continue to dominate the conversation and stifle competition through lobbying and regulatory capture. While global platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok are available in Canada, the government has taken steps to ensure that these platforms comply with Canadian content regulations and privacy laws. Countries each ‘gots’ their own. Not sus at all.

Canada's government has shown concern about foreign influence in its digital landscape, with discussions about limiting the spread of misinformation or curbing bad actors. However, this scrutiny does not always extend to domestic corporate interests, which continue to dominate the national conversation and stifle competition through lobbying and regulatory capture McCarthy Tétrault

There is a broader conversation to be had about the differences in how these platforms operate within Canada compared to other countries, where certain features or policies may be adjusted to fit Canadian content regulations. For instance, the need for platforms to promote Canadian content under laws like the Broadcasting Act subtly influences the algorithms and what content Canadian users are most likely to see. This level of regulation is indicative of the government’s efforts to maintain control over the digital environment, ensuring compliance with national standards while keeping foreign actors in check.

Canada's innovation ecosystem, while often presented as thriving, is more constrained by these deeply embedded power structures than many people realize. In a post-truth world, where narratives are increasingly divorced from objective reality, Canada's image as a progressive and innovative nation is carefully maintained. The actual conditions for growth and disruption, however, tell a different story—one of protectionism, gatekeeping, and a system designed to maintain corporate control over new players and ideas.

In a post-truth world, where the line between fact and narrative is blurred, the very structures designed to uphold accountability, such as Canada’s Lobbying Act, often become tools in the broader PR game that maintains and conceals corruption. In philosophy, postmodernists like Jean Baudrillard and Michel Foucault have long suggested that power doesn’t just reside in obvious places of authority but is embedded in the very discourses and systems meant to regulate it. In Canada’s case, the lobbying system exemplifies this: a structure ostensibly designed for transparency, but one that serves to obscure the deeper, more insidious workings of institutional power.

According to Baudrillard, we live in a world of simulacra, where signs and symbols don’t point to a real object or truth but rather create their own reality. The Lobbying Act, with its registration requirements, reporting mechanisms, and periodic reviews, presents a simulacrum of transparency—a system designed to signal accountability. But does it truly deliver on that promise, or is it more about performing transparency without real accountability?

This phenomenon is visible in how lobbying activities are reported. The requirement to register and disclose interactions with public office holders creates the appearance of oversight, but as scandals like WE Charity and SNC-Lavalin show, key players still find ways to circumvent the system. The public spectacle of regulatory processes, while calming public suspicion, often masks the deeper entrenchment of corruption.

Michel Foucault emphasized that power is not just held by a few individuals but is diffused throughout society and institutions. In the context of lobbying, power isn’t just in the hands of lobbyists or the government but in the rules and frameworks themselves that perpetuate certain power dynamics. The regulatory system of the Lobbying Act—its reporting, its focus on the 20% rule—acts not as a countermeasure to power but as a way to legitimize existing structures.

In Foucault’s terms, the panopticon effect is at play. The Act creates a system where lobbyists are always under the threat of surveillance, but in practice, only certain high-profile actors are subjected to scrutiny. Smaller players are often blocked by bureaucratic complexities, while large corporations, like Bombardier or Irving Shipbuilding, operate within the accepted norms of influence, untouched by real oversight.

Canadian bureaucracy, in its regulation of lobbying, is a classic case of hyperreality, where the distinction between reality and the simulation of reality is blurred. Baudrillard's hyperreality describes a condition where what is real and what is fiction are seamlessly interwoven, and the two cannot be distinguished. The Lobbying Act, as a legal and regulatory framework, exists to create the illusion of control—a hyperreal construct where the public believes in the effectiveness of oversight without questioning its true efficacy.

We see this in how lobbying scandals are handled. They surface, dominate headlines for a while, and then fade as the narrative is absorbed back into the system. The public outcry serves to reinforce the system by making it seem as though issues are being addressed, when in reality, they are simply managed until they are no longer a threat to the established order.

PR game in Canadian lobbying is a well-oiled machine, designed to stay several steps ahead of public accountability. Every misstep, every scandal, is met with a carefully crafted response that ensures minimal damage to those in power. Lobbying firms and their clients don’t just navigate the rules—they shape the narrative, making it almost impossible for the public to discern where real reform ends and PR spin begins.

In a post-truth world, this is perhaps the most powerful strategy: the ability to manage truth as narrative, to present accountability as performance without ever addressing the underlying issues. Whether it’s through loopholes in the Lobbying Act or the effective use of media, the result is the same—entrenched power structures remain unchallenged, and corruption, though hidden, continues to thrive under the guise of transparency.

Lobbying Act serves as a perfect microcosm of postmodern power structures. It creates an intricate web of rules and regulations that appear to foster transparency, but in reality, they reinforce existing hierarchies and safeguard the status quo.

By using the tools of postmodern philosophy—simulacra, hyperreality, and the diffusion of power—we can see that Canada’s lobbying system, far from being a bulwark against corruption, is part of a larger PR machine that excels at keeping the public in the dark while ensuring power remains in the same hands.

Canada's innovation ecosystem is often touted as thriving, but the reality is more constrained. Regulatory and economic power structures are deeply embedded in the telecommunications, energy, and media industries, where a few key players have the resources to maintain dominance through lobbying and regulatory capture. As a result, smaller innovators often face an uphill battle to gain visibility, let alone secure government funding or contracts McCarthy Tétrault C.D. Howe Institute.

Telecommunications is a prime example of this industrial protectionism. Canada's telecom giants, including Bell and Rogers, are protected by strict foreign ownership rules, which effectively block foreign competition and drive up consumer costs. This leads to some of the highest mobile data prices in the developed world, stifling competition and innovation McCarthy Tétrault.

As long as truth is malleable, and narratives are carefully controlled, the real mechanisms of corruption will remain obscured, quietly shaping the nation’s policies and public trust.

While the government frequently speaks about encouraging innovation, the regulatory frameworks in place seem designed to maintain the status quo, allowing large corporations to influence policy through lobbying and back-channel relationships. This phenomenon is not unique to Canada but is particularly pronounced here due to the close relationships between industry leaders and government regulators.