Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

National

Conservative report accuses Trudeau gov’t of ignoring Chinese interference because it helped Liberals

Published

5 minute read

Chinese President Xi Jinping (right) shakes hands with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to the G20 Summit on September 4, 2016 in Hangzhou, China.

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

‘Conservatives note that the Liberal government knew the Communist Party of China was interfering in Canada’s democracy for years and had they not been the beneficiary of this foreign interference the Liberals may have taken action…’ the report stated

Conservatives have accused Trudeau’s Liberal government of having ignored foreign interference because it was to their political benefit.  

On October 24, Conservative Member of Parliament (MP) John Brassard published a report from Conservatives accusing the Liberal government under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of ignoring Chinese interference in Canadian elections through China’s donations to the prime minister’s family foundation, the Pierre Elliot Trudeau Foundation.   

“Conservatives note that the Liberal government knew the Communist Party of China was interfering in Canada’s democracy for years and had they not been the beneficiary of this foreign interference the Liberals may have taken action, rather than reacting to sustained public and political pressure,” the report stated.   

“It is clear, through testimony heard by the committee from current and former members of the Trudeau Foundation, that the Foundation had no bylaws for foreign interference, no oversight of donations, and no due diligence done of donations,” it continued.  

The report referenced a $140,000 donation by a Chinese billionaire, Zhang Bin, who has direct ties to Beijing. Bin was also photographed at a 2016 fundraiser with Trudeau. Furthermore, Trudeau’s brother, Sacha, was pictured accepting the donation from Bin on behalf of the Trudeau Foundation.  

“Seemingly, it was the perfect conduit for a foreign dictatorship to influence Prime Minister Justin Trudeau,” the report stated. “The interference operation was proven successful as the two cutouts had direct access to the Prime Minister within five months of the donation.”  

Following public outcry over the donation, Pascale Fournier, Former President and Executive Officer at the Trudeau Foundation, testified that “because of the allegations in the media, it would be best for the Foundation to repay the donation.”  

According to Edward Johnson, chair of the board and founding member of the Foundation, the money was returned, and the deposit was confirmed in writing.  

 “In light of the evidence, the committee cannot take a definitive position on this case,” the committee ruled after the testimonies.  

However, Conservatives pointed out that, “The irony is not lost on Conservatives that the beneficiary of a foreign interference campaign of disinformation perpetrated by the Communist Party of China would partake in a committee study pertaining to the very foreign interference campaign that helped him get elected.” 

“This reinforces the fact that this Liberal government has an utter disregard for ethics and conflicts of interest,” the Conservative report continued.  

As a result, the report recommended that, “the Government of Canada undertake a forensic audit of the Trudeau Foundation.” 

The Foundation labels itself as “an independent and non-partisan charity established in 2001 as a living memorial to the former prime minister.”  

Pierre Trudeau is the late father of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and was prime minister from 1968 until 1984 except for a brief lapse from 1979 to 1980. He was known for his praise of the major totalitarian political systems of his day. 

The Trudeau Foundation has undergone increased scrutiny regarding its connection with China, and the examination will continue. In late September, MPs from the House of Commons unanimously voted to have the country’s Auditor General investigate the $125 million taxpayer endowment given to help found the Trudeau Foundation in 2001. 

This investigation comes just months after Canadian MPs from the House of Commons Public Accounts voted to begin an examination after a report surfaced detailing how the non-profit group received a $200,000 donation alleged to be connected to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Following the release of this report, the entire board of directors, including the president and CEO, of the Trudeau Foundation resigned.   

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.

Follow Author

Business

Next federal government should reverse Ottawa’s plastics ban

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari

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
Continue Reading

Agriculture

Dairy Farmers Need To Wake Up Before The System Crumbles

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Dr. Sylvain Charlebois

Without reform, Canada risks losing nearly half of its dairy farms by 2030, according to experts

Few topics in Canadian agriculture generate as much debate as supply management in the dairy sector. The issue gained renewed attention when former U.S. President Donald Trump criticized Canada’s protectionist stance during NAFTA renegotiations, underscoring the need to reassess the system’s long-term viability.

While proponents argue that supply management ensures financial stability for farmers and shields them from global market volatility, critics contend that it inflates consumer prices, limits competition, and stifles innovation. A policy assessment titled Supply Management 2.0: A Policy Assessment and a Possible Roadmap for the Canadian Dairy Sector, conducted by researchers at Dalhousie University and the University of Guelph, sheds light on the system’s inefficiencies and presents a compelling case for reform.

Designed in the 1970s to regulate production and stabilize dairy prices, Canada’s supply management system operates through strict production quotas and high import tariffs. However, as successive trade agreements such as the USMCA, CETA, and CPTPP erode these protections, the system appears increasingly fragile. The federal government’s $3-billion compensation package to dairy farmers for hypothetical trade losses is a clear indication that the current structure is unsustainable.

Instead of fostering resilience, supply management has created an industry that is increasingly dependent on government payouts rather than market-driven efficiencies. If current trends persist, Canada could lose nearly half of its dairy farms by 2030 — regardless of who is in the White House.

Consumer sentiment is also shifting. Younger generations are questioning the sustainability and transparency of the dairy industry, particularly in light of scandals such as ButterGate, where palm oil supplements were used in cow feed to alter butterfat content, making butter harder at room temperature. Additionally, undisclosed milk dumping of anywhere between 600 million to 1 billion litres annually has further eroded public trust. These factors indicate that the industry is failing to align with evolving consumer expectations.

One of the most alarming findings in the policy assessment is the extent of overcapitalization in the dairy sector. Government compensation payments, coupled with rigid production quotas, have encouraged inefficiency rather than fostering innovation. Unlike their counterparts in Australia and the European Union — where deregulation has driven productivity gains — Canadian dairy farmers remain insulated from competitive pressures that could otherwise drive modernization.

The policy assessment also highlights a growing geographic imbalance in dairy production. Over 74% of Canada’s dairy farms are concentrated in Quebec and Ontario, despite only 61% of the national population residing in these provinces. This concentration exacerbates supply chain inefficiencies and increases price disparities. As a result, consumers in Atlantic Canada, the North, and Indigenous communities face disproportionately high dairy costs, raising serious food security concerns. Addressing these imbalances requires policies that promote regional diversification in dairy production.

A key element of modernization must involve a gradual reform of production quotas and tariffs. The existing quota system restricts farmers’ ability to respond dynamically to market signals. While quota allocation is managed provincially, harmonizing the system at the federal level would create a more cohesive market. Moving toward a flexible quota model, with expansion mechanisms based on demand, would increase competitiveness and efficiency.

Tariff policies also warrant reassessment. While tariffs provide necessary protection for domestic producers, they currently contribute to artificially inflated consumer prices. A phased reduction in tariffs, complemented by direct incentives for farmers investing in productivity-enhancing innovations and sustainability initiatives, could strike a balance between maintaining food sovereignty and fostering competitiveness.

Despite calls for reform, inertia persists due to entrenched interests within the sector. However, resistance is not a viable long-term strategy. Industrial milk prices in Canada are now the highest in the Western world, making the sector increasingly uncompetitive on a global scale. While supply management also governs poultry and eggs, these industries have adapted more effectively, remaining competitive through efficiency improvements and innovation. In contrast, the dairy sector continues to grapple with structural inefficiencies and a lack of modernization.

That said, abolishing supply management outright is neither desirable nor practical. A sudden removal of protections would expose Canadian dairy farmers to aggressive foreign competition, risking rural economic stability and jeopardizing domestic food security. Instead, a balanced approach is needed — one that preserves the core benefits of supply management while integrating market-driven reforms to ensure the industry remains competitive, innovative and sustainable.

Canada’s supply management system, once a pillar of stability, has become an impediment to progress. As global trade dynamics shift and consumer expectations evolve, policymakers have an opportunity to modernize the system in a way that balances fair pricing with market efficiency. The recommendations from Supply Management 2.0 suggest that regional diversification of dairy production, value-chain-based pricing models that align production with actual market demand, and a stronger emphasis on research and development could help modernize the industry. Performance-based government compensation, rather than blanket payouts that preserve inefficiencies, would also improve long-term sustainability.

The question is no longer whether reform is necessary, but whether the dairy industry and policymakers are prepared to embrace it. A smarter, more flexible supply management framework will be crucial in ensuring that Canadian dairy remains resilient, competitive, and sustainable for future generations.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is senior director of the agri-food analytics lab and a professor in food distribution and policy at Dalhousie University.

Continue Reading

Trending

X