During his daily coronavirus press briefing on Friday, Trudeau said he was “disappointed” with charges laid by China against Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor.
The two Canadians are being charged by the Chinese regime with various espionage crimes after being unlawfully arrested in retaliation for the detainment of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou by Canadian authorities.
“In the case of the two Michaels, I can say that we are using a wide range of public and private measures to ensure that everything is being done to get these Michaels home,” said Trudeau.
Spavor is being charged with spying for a foreign entity and illegally providing state secrets, while Kovrig is charged with spying for state secrets and intelligence.
The two have spent well over a year in Chinese prisons since being arrested in December 2018.
Trudeau’s comments came shortly after China’s ambassador to Canada Cong Peiwu wrote an op-ed in the Toronto Star claiming that China would never “interfere” in Canada or undermine its relations with the country.
“The Chinese side never takes the initiative to stir up trouble and will never do anything to interfere in Canada’s internal affairs or undermine China-Canada relations,” wrote Cong.
Recent reports have outlined significant attempts by international organizations linked to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to interfere in Canada’s affairs.
According to a Global News investigation, United Front groups associated with the Chinese state were directing diaspora and auxiliary organizations to buy up personal protective equipment in Canada and abroad, while the CCP was playing down the severity of the coronavirus.
Conservative Party leader Andrew Scheer accused the Trudeau government of not taking enough actions in securing the release of the two imprisoned Canadians.
“It’s been 18 months since Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor were arbitrarily and unlawfully detained by the Chinese government. During this time, Justin Trudeau has done nothing to stand up against the People’s Republic of China’s actions,” said Scheer.
“This case should be being dealt with at the highest levels. But Justin Trudeau has repeatedly refused to intervene.”
We have a huge problem in this country. And no, I don’t mean racism (systemic or otherwise), discrimination, environmental pollution or the other myriad issues facing Canadians.
I mean the fact that we aren’t having conversations about Canadian problems.
Most recently, the national conversation has revolved around anti-black racism, sparked by the senseless death of George Floyd in Minnesota.
To be clear, anti-black racism in Canada is real, and, like other forms of racism or discrimination, should be fought and condemned vigorously.
But the Canadian reality is vastly different from the American one.
For starters, Canada does not have a legacy of slavery like that of the United States. Canada was still part of the British Empire when it abolished slavery in 1833, prior to which only small numbers of slaves were ever recorded — mostly aboriginal peoples in New France captured or purchased from local tribes according to historian Marcel Trudel. Black slaves were occasionally brought to Canada, the largest group of which appears to be approximately 2,000 who came to Canada in 1783 when Loyalists fled north with them. Slavery was abolished in Upper Canada (Ontario) in 1793 by the Act Against Slavery.
Canada also did not have any equivalent to the Jim Crow laws which enforced segregation and made black Americans into second class citizens.
When it comes to education, schools in the United States are funded by local property taxes, meaning that lower-income neighbourhoods raise fewer amounts of property taxes to contribute to local schools. This has led to a situation where many poorer black neighbourhoods have fewer resources in schools than wealthier, often whiter, neighbourhoods nearby. Canada’s education system is more equitable — school boards tend to each be given a flat amount per student, regardless of their location.
According to Statistics Canada, there are approximately 1.2 million Canadians who identify as black, mostly in Ontario and Quebec which make up 3.5% of the total population. Of these, 56.4% were born outside of Canada compared to only 8.7% of black Americans. This creates a situation where issues affecting Canada’s black community may overlap with other challenges faced by recent immigrants. As such, language, employment or cultural barriers may explain some of the differences in outcomes between groups.
Lastly, with approximately 37% of black Canadians living in Toronto, many of the issues facing the community should be understood as largely Toronto-centric as opposed to national. Yet our news media has chosen to focus on protests in the United States when they should instead be talking about real issues, like those faced by Toronto’s black community such as possible police profiling or the use of arbitrary roadside stops.
So why does our national conversation tend to be peppered with American rhetoric?
Well, because it’s guaranteed to get a reaction from the public. Since most Canadians are steeped in American culture through movies, music and the news media, they may not even realize that we are being subjected to a largely American narrative. This is despite the fact that Canada has a vastly different history, governance and societal outcomes than our American neighbours.
Second, it can be an excellent political distraction; why focus on real problems when we can focus on American problems which have no real Canadian solution instead?
If you listen to the Prime Minister or most media outlets, you will find the discussion revolving around police brutality or the killings of black men. The implication being that this is a serious issue facing our country.
While it is difficult to determine how many people are killed by police each year (since Statistics Canada only tracks fatal shootings if the officer is criminally charged) most estimates put the total number below 25 per year. This includes people of all races and ethnic groups.
This is not to say that black Canadians never face unique challenges, racism or even harassment by police. However, focusing on American issues is stopping us from addressing the more prevalent forms of racism here at home.
You may have heard of “carding,” otherwise known as “street checking.” This involves the police stopping, questioning and documenting individuals in high crime neighbourhoods even when they are not conducting an investigation or suspect any offence has occurred. This can happen in any place a police officer has contact with the public, be it on public or private property.
This specific process was officially stopped in Toronto in 2014 after a Toronto Star investigation accused the police department of racism because data showed that black and brown-skinned Canadians were far more likely to be stopped. Similarly, both black and Indigenous people in Vancouver were more likely to be considered suspicious, and therefore ‘street checked,’ than others.
But did this mean that black and brown Canadians were stopped more on purpose or because they were more likely to be in a high-crime neighbourhood? It’s hard to tell just by looking at the publicly available data, especially when there are so many other variables.
Dr. Thomas Sowell, American economist and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, provides a useful analytical tool that can help us understand, as he puts it, the three types of discrimination: 1a, 1b and 2.
Discrimination 1a: being sorted or discriminated against based on relevant characteristics specific to each person. E.g. street checking James because he’s in a gang and has a criminal record.
Discrimination 1b: trying to predict unknown individual characteristics based on observed group characteristics or averages. E.g. street checking James’ friend in a high-crime area because he was previously seen there with James and the gang.
Discrimination 2: arbitrary discrimination that ignores characteristics relevant to the decision making process. E.g. street checking James because he is black.
Street checking is just one example of a real, definable Canadian issue. One which may have many factors, variables and causes for us to discuss, examine and fix. Potential Charter issues aside, it matters whether or not police in Canada are employing type 1a, 1b or 2 discrimination. And the only way to find that out is to talk about it and examine the facts.
The distractions being created by our focus on American issues means that we are allowing Canadian problems to be perpetuated. We must all ensure that we aren’t being swayed by passionate American rhetoric or forgetting the Canadian context of any issue, including racism or police brutality. By being too busy debating American problems, we are complicit in allowing Canadian problems to stand.
Former prime minister Stephen Harper felt the wrath of the Canadian mainstream media after failing to secure a UN Security Council spot in 2010. But as announced on Wednesday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has now also lost the bid, yet mainstream media are letting him off the hook.
Comparing the mainstream media’s reaction to Harper’s bid in 2010 with Trudeau’s latest attempt shows a stark difference in attitudes despite the fact that the Liberals secured far fewer votes than the Conservatives did while in power.
Articles by the Globe and Mail, the CBC and the Saskatoon StarPhoenix all lambasted Harper shortly after he failed to secure a Security Council seat in 2010.
One news article in the Globe and Mail titled “Security Council rejection a deep embarrassment for Harper” called the loss a “humiliating rejection.”
In comparison, on the same day Trudeau lost the bid, the same publication made no reference to the prime minister in their headline. Instead of pinning the failure on Trudeau, the Globe simply wrote: “Canada loses UN Security Council election to Ireland, Norway.”
“Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his government campaigned hard for the Security Council seat,” claimed the article.
“Despite the loss, Mr. Trudeau said Canada will continue to promote its values of peace, freedom, democracy and human rights on the world stage.”
Meanwhile, in November 2010, the CBC parroted claims by then-Liberal opposition leader Michael Ignatieff, who called Harper’s loss Canada’s “most embarrassing moment.”
“The fact is that every prime minister who has tried to win a seat for Canada on the UN Security Council has succeeded — except for Stephen Harper,” Ignatieff was quoted as saying in the article.
The CBC aired no such vicious condemnation yesterday or today after Trudeau’s bitter defeat. Instead, the federally-subsidized public broadcaster ran with an article plainly headlined: “Canada loses its bid for seat on UN Security Council.”
“It’s a heavy blow for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Foreign Affairs Minister François-Philippe Champagne and other high-level officials who had been reaching out to political leaders around the world in a campaign to secure one of the two available rotating seats,” said the article.
Several other outlets also dragged Harper through the mud while he was prime minister.
Articles once featured in the Saskatoon StarPhoenix and the Guelph Mercury blamed Harper for the defeat. Those very same publications have been relatively silent on Trudeau’s failure.
One archived StarPhoenix article dated 25 October 2010 claimed “Harper cost Canada seat.”
“Canada was always successful in the past at gaining a seat on the council, primarily due to the personality, principals [sic], policies and actions of its prime ministers,” wrote an op-ed written by Mo Miller.
Another article from the same publication, dated 23 October 2010, reads “Pin UN defeat on Harper.”
“In Harperland, nothing is the fault of ‘Da Boss.’ The attempt to blame the loss on Michael Ignatieff was laughed out by almost all media except Fox News and QMI,” said an op-ed by Robert Bandurka.
Meanwhile, an editorial from the Guelph Mercury in 2010 disseminated similar sentiments in an article titled: “Harper is to blame for Canada’s loss at UN.”
“In his insulting actions toward the international community, Harper ensured our loss of the UN Security Council Seat,” wrote Mark Sholdice on 23 October 2010.
To date, neither the Guelph Mercury nor the StarPhoenix have published any similar opinionated condemnations of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
The day following Trudeau’s disastrous UN Security Council bid, English mainstream media outlets didn’t bother to ask him about it.
During Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s daily coronavirus briefing on Thursday, only one question was asked in French by TVA’s Raymond Fillion regarding the failed race against Norway and Ireland.
York Regional Police are investigating an incident of vandalism after a Pierre Elliott Trudeau statue in Vaughan, Ont. was painted in blackface.
Photographs of the statue show Trudeau Sr.’s likeness covered in black paint from the neck up.
Officers investigating report of a statue in Pierre Elliott Trudeau park in Vaughan being vandalized. Information received that the statue's face was covered with black paint. Any witnesses please call 866-876-5423 x7441.
According to CP24 journalist Kris Pangilinan, the police force’s Hate Crime Unit has been involved in the investigation.
#BREAKING: York Regional Police tell CP24 their Hate Crime Unit is investigating after a statue of former Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau in a park in his namesake was vandalized. pic.twitter.com/LL4rt0DnfI
The incident comes after left-wing activists across the nation have called for various statues to be removed and place names to be changed, citing racist origins.
Statues of Canada’s first Prime Minister Sir John A. MacDonald have been frequent targets of vandalism over the last few years.
Several days ago, an iconic statue of MacDonald was covered in paint by “anti-colonial vandals.”
The monument was compared to Confederate statues in the US and the accusation that “RCMP Rape Native Women/Kill Native Men” was written at the statue’s base.
In a recent petition, activists in Vaughan called on the city to change its name due to affiliations with its namesake Benjamin Vaughan.
“It is shameful that we uphold these people as heroes in our communities by naming cities after them and declaring civic holidays in honour of them,” wrote petition organizer Lindsay Michelle.
“We need to stand up against people like Benjamin Vaughan who have made decisions as a politician and everyday human that has caused trauma, violence and even death for black, indigenous and people of colour.”
After years of lobbying and sucking up to the UN community, including to despots, dictators and countries with questionable human rights records, Justin Trudeau lost Canada’s bid for a United Nations Security Council seat.
It wasn’t even close. Trudeau failed. In fact, he failed far worse than Stephen Harper and the Conservatives did back in 2010.
The truth is this — no one takes Justin Trudeau seriously. And because he’s our Prime Minister, no one takes Canada seriously either.
During Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s daily coronavirus briefing on Thursday, English mainstream media outlets didn’t bother to ask him about his disastrous UN Security Council bid.
Only one question was asked in French by TVA’s Raymond Fillion regarding the failed race against Norway and Ireland.
“We would have hoped for a different result yesterday,” said Trudeau.
“But the reality was that coming in five years later than [Norway and Ireland] gave us a delay that we were unfortunately unable to overcome.”
During the vote, Trudeau performed worse than former prime minister Stephen Harper did when he ran for the spot in 2010.
Under Trudeau’s leadership, Canada was only able to secure 108 votes, which was considerably less than the 114 Canada secured under Harper.
At the time, outlets like the Globe and Mail hounded Harper and blamed him for Canada’s defeat. Meanwhile, only one day after the fact, reference to Trudeau’s defeat is curiously absent from the publication’s homepage.
In contrast, when Harper failed to achieve success in the 2010 UN election, the Globe and Mail printed a piece laying blame squarely on the then-prime minister.
One news article from 2010 in the Globe and Mail titled “Security Council rejection a deep embarrassment for Harper” referred to the loss as a “humiliating rejection.”
Several other outlets in 2010 also criticized Harper for his loss, while suspiciously omitting similar criticisms regarding Trudeau recently.
Trudeau broke federal ethics rules twice. He contested the accusations & lost. He lost when it came to NAFTA, and lost when attempting a pandemic power grab.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s involvement in the SNC-Lavalin scandal harmed Canada’s global corruption ranking.
According to Blacklock’s Reporter, Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion pointed out the negative effect the controversy had on Canada’s international reputation.
“Gaining and retaining public trust remains an ongoing challenge for institutions in Canada,” said Dion in this year’s report on the Conflict Of Interest Act.
“This is evidenced by data published by credible international organizations that provide a broad indication of levels of public trust.”
Dion cited the Corruption Perceptions Index which is overseen by Transparency International. In the index, Canada fell from 9th to 12th place in the category of “perceived levels of public sector corruption.”
In 2019, Dion found the prime minister guilty of breaking ethics laws when he pressured former Justice Minister and Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould to intervene in the corruption trial of SNC-Lavalin.
In his revealing Trudeau II report, Dion concluded that Trudeau acted improperly.
“I found that Mr. Trudeau used his position of authority over Ms. Wilson‑Raybould to seek to influence, both directly and indirectly, her decision on whether she should overrule the Director of Public Prosecutions’ decision not to invite SNC-Lavalin to enter into negotiations towards a remediation agreement,” wrote Dion in his report.
In the 2020 Proof CanTrust Index poll, SNC-Lavalin ranked among the least trusted Canadian brands with only 16% of Canadians saying they trusted the company to do the right thing.
Last year, former SNC-Lavalin Vice President Sami Bebawi was found guilty on several corruption charges related to the company’s past dealings in Libya.
Bebawi was sentenced to 8 years and six months in prison as a result of his criminal convictions.
The Conservative caucus voted in favour of an NDP motion which condemned the RCMP as systemically racist.
On Wednesday Conservative Party MPs joined with most of the House of Commons to support a motion introduced by NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh which claimed that systemic racism exists in the RCMP.
Not sure which is worse, this immature outbreak by a party leader, or the fact that the Conservative Party of Canada agreed to a motion condemning the RCMP for systemic racism before the issue has even been studied. https://t.co/RZ937I1EW4
“There have been consultations, and I hope if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion, that the House recognizes that there is systemic racism in the RCMP, as several Indigenous people have died at the hands of the RCMP in recent months,” said Singh in the House.
Included in the motion was a request that MPs review the RCMP budget and release all use-of-force reports.
All Conservatives present in the House of Commons agreed with the motion. Due to coronavirus restrictions, only a limited number of MPs from each party were present.
The motion required unanimous support in order to pass. The motion ultimately failed when Bloc MP Alain Therrien voted against.
In a heated exchange, Singh called Therrien a racist. House Speaker Anthony Rota ordered Singh to leave parliament for the rest of the day after he refused to apologize.
“Anyone who votes against a motion that recognizes the systemic racism in the RCMP and that calls for basic fixes for the problem … is a racist, yes,” Singh said after leaving the House of Commons.
In a statement, the Bloc Québécois indicated that the public safety committee is currently studying systemic racism in the RCMP and that the committee should be allowed to do its work.
Earlier this month, Conservative interim leader Andrew Scheer said he opposed cutting funding to the RCMP, adding that he believes the agency needs to do more to combat systemic racism in its ranks.
RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki herself has claimed that systemic racism is present in the RCMP.
Criticisms of law enforcement increased dramatically after George Floyd was killed by police in Minneapolis while in police custody several weeks ago.
City councillors in Toronto have introduced a motion to cut the budget of the Toronto Police Service by 10%.
Last week the RCMP Veterans’ Association spoke out against the vilification of the force, with President Sandy P. Glenn saying politicians and Lucki are not making the public or RCMP safer.
“Making sweeping generalization statements about any group of people is always unfair and in the case of a senior executive member, singularly inappropriate and inaccurate,” Glenn said.
“Thoughtless statements from our political leaders put frontline Members of the RCMP at risk.”
NDP leader Jagmeet Singh was kicked out of the House of Commons this afternoon after he accused Bloc Québécois MP Alain Therrien of being a “racist.”
The incident occurred after Singh failed to acquire unanimous consent for a motion to recognize systemic racism in the RCMP.
“There have been consultations, and I hope if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion, that the House recognizes that there is systemic racism in the RCMP, as several Indigenous people have died at the hands of the RCMP in recent months,” said Singh in the House.
Singh was ultimately unable to pass the motion after House Speaker Anthony Rota put it to the other members.
Shortly after Singh’s motion failed, Singh and Therrien allegedly had a heated exchange while still in the House.
Singh’s name-calling was addressed by Bloc Québécois MP Claude DeBellefeuille, who called the accusatory remark “unacceptable.”
“Everyone has a right to their opinion, but I do not believe that a leader of a party can here treat another member of a party of this house, call them racist because we don’t approve the motion that was just moved,” said DeBellefeuille.
“The NDP unabashedly is treating the member of La Prairie as a racist person, and this is unacceptable in this house.”
When called on to confirm whether he was directing unparliamentary language towards a fellow MP, Singh stood by his comment.
“It’s true, I called him a racist, and I believe that’s so,” said Singh.
Singh was eventually ordered by the Speaker to leave the House of Commons for his unparliamentary behaviour.
"In that moment I got angry. But I'm sad now. Because why can't we act? Why can't we do something to save people's lives? We can do something, and why would someone say no to that?" @theJagmeetSingh says of calling a Bloc MP racist, choking back tears.https://t.co/MBAL1ERYkcpic.twitter.com/p0K2FE9mD2
During a press conference later that day, Singh addressed his actions, saying that he was momentarily angry when he made the accusation.
“In that moment I got angry. But I’m sad now. Because why can’t we act? Why can’t we do something to save people’s lives? We can do something, and why would someone say no to that?” said Singh.
Throughout the Conservative Party leadership campaign, there have been reoccurring discussions about how Conservatives can appeal to Quebec voters. Those subscribing to these discussions suggest that only by winning seats held in Quebec, where the Liberals and Bloc Québécois hold the majority of the seats, can the Conservatives form a majority government once again.
These discussions have popped up again this week after Conservative leadership candidate Erin O’Toole released his platform which contained 34-specific policy positions dedicated to Quebec, causing criticism from some for his apparent pandering to the region while light on Western provinces. Similarly, some Conservatives from the East, like Newfoundland and Labrador Senator David Wells, called into question the lack of any specific reference to Atlantic Canada.
This Quebec-focused strategy was also utilized by Andrew Scheer during the last election, in which significant resources were diverted there for little results – a mistake that all leadership candidates will want to avoid.
Proponents of a Quebec-focused election strategy seem to desire a remake of the “Mulroney coalition” – that is, the coalition of socially conservative western populists, eastern fiscal conservatives and Quebec nationalists, which helped deliver Brian Mulroney two large electoral mandates in the 1980’s.
This coalition, of course, collapsed in the 1993 federal election in which the Progressive Conservatives, under the leadership of Kim Campbell, suffered a humiliating defeat and won only two seats. Meanwhile, Preston Manning’s Reform Party – the new home for socially conservative western populists – won 52 seats, and the Bloc Québécois – the new home for Quebec nationalists led by ex-Mulroney cabinet minister Lucian Bouchard – captured 53 seats and formed the Official Opposition.
What proponents of a Quebec strategy tend to miss in attempting to rebuild the Mulroney coalition is that when then-Canadian Alliance leader Stephen Harper and then-Progressive Conservative leader Peter MacKay merged their respective parties to form the modern Conservative Party of Canada, the Quebec nationalists never “came home” to the new party. In fact, for most of the federal elections contested since the formation of the Conservative Party of Canada, the Bloc Québécois captured a plurality of the Quebec seats in the House of Commons – including 32 of the 78 total in the last election.
So, does this mean that Conservatives should continue this strategy of appealing to Quebec voters in hopes of turning the tide? Maybe more targeted messages, nationalist dog-whistling, and double-speak in English and French?
By looking at the results of the 2011 federal election – the only time the modern Conservative Party formed a majority government – the answer is undeniably no.
In 2011, the Conservatives capitulated from 143 to 163 seats, surpassing the 155 seats needed for a majority at that time. However, in Quebec, the Conservatives captured just five seats – a 50% decrease in seats held in Quebec in 2008. Instead, thanks to strong support in all other parts of the country, Prime Minister Stephen Harper was granted his most-sought-after majority government.
In this break-through, the Conservatives won 14 seats in Atlantic Canada. And, if you look closely at the results, it is clear that they were competitive in many more of them. Yet today, the Conservatives hold only four seats in the region – including being shut out completely in PEI and Newfoundland and Labrador, where they collectively won five seats during periods of the Harper government.
These numbers should make it clear that Conservatives need to put a greater focus on Atlantic Canada to reach government again – which, as a region that is naturally very “small c” conservative, shouldn’t require the pandering that Conservatives have demonstrated while seeking seats in Quebec. Atlantic Canada, after all, is predominately rural, working-class, Christian, proponents of development of their rich natural resources – including Newfoundland’s offshore oil – and share a skepticism of Ottawa in the same vein as our allies in the west.
Conservatives are not going to form government by selling out their values to appeal to urbanites in Montreal or strict nationalists in rural Quebec. Instead, by reassessing by looking further east, the Conservatives will find the seats needed to stop Justin Trudeau and lead a strong and stable government once again.