Connect with us

National

Committee Hearing Exposes Trudeau’s Political Spin on Foreign Interference

Published

8 minute read

The Opposition with Dan Knight

In a Circus of Leaks, Double Standards, and Evasions, Conservatives Call Out the Trudeau Government for Putting International Optics Over Canadian Sovereignty

In Canada’s recent hearing with the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security (SECU) on alleged interference by Indian government-linked agents, what should have been a serious inquiry into national security turned into a Liberal-led circus of deflections, double standards, and selective outrage. The Trudeau government trotted out high-ranking officials—representatives from CSIS, the RCMP, the Privy Council Office, and Global Affairs Canada—who were there to answer for the alleged interference tactics targeting Canadians. And to top it off, they were asked why, instead of informing Canadians directly, they’d chosen to leak the intel to The Washington Post. Why were Canadians the last to know about threats on their own soil? And why did a foreign newspaper get the scoop on a story affecting Canadian sovereignty?

At issue were allegations that Indian agents had been involved in intimidation tactics and organized criminal activities targeting Canada’s Sikh community, particularly those sympathetic to the separatist movement. The committee also questioned why the Trudeau government’s response has been to selectively leak this information to American media, while keeping Canadians in the dark about similar threats from other foreign governments—particularly China.

The Leaks to The Washington Post: Information for Foreign Press, Silence for Canadians

Instead of informing Canadians directly, the Trudeau government decided it was a better idea to leak details about alleged Indian interference to The Washington Post, claiming it was to combat “misinformation” internationally. Let’s pause for a moment—this is Canada we’re talking about, and the government feels it’s necessary to share news about threats to Canadians with foreign media instead of Canadians themselves. That selective leak didn’t go unnoticed by Conservative MPs, especially Raquel Dancho. Dancho took the PCO to task, asking why, when it’s Indian interference, they rush to get the word out to American media, but when it comes to Chinese interference, they hide behind “national security.” Canadians watching this hearing saw the hypocrisy plain as day.

Then enter Jennifer O’Connell. She wasn’t there to press for answers—she was there to protect the government narrative. Instead of holding the PCO accountable, O’Connell fed them a lifeline with soft, scripted questions. She was practically giving them cue cards. She asked them to “explain” the reasoning behind the leak to The Washington Post, letting the PCO offer up the excuse of “controlling the narrative.” Controlling the narrative? You don’t say. Jennifer O’Connell might as well have been reading from a Liberal Party talking points memo, trying to dress up a blatant international PR stunt as a move to protect Canadians.

But here’s where it falls apart. Dancho’s challenge was clear: if the Trudeau government had no problem leaking intel on India to The Washington Post, why do they stay silent on the Chinese interference claims that have rocked our elections? Why are Canadians kept in the dark when it doesn’t suit the Liberals’ image? This isn’t national security; this is political convenience, plain and simple.

Conservatives Call Out Liberal Spin and Selective Transparency

Raquel Dancho didn’t mince words, asking why the government leaks intelligence on Indian interference to American media yet hides CCP-related interference under a “national security” guise.

“I wish that the Liberal members would apply that same energy to holding their own Prime Minister accountable for failing to stop interference into our elections,”

She said, calling out the hypocrisy point-blank. Dancho’s comments exposed the Liberals’ inconsistent approach to foreign interference and questioned why the government continues to treat Canadians like afterthoughts.

Glen Motz zeroed in on the glaring gaps in Canada’s vetting process for foreign diplomats, particularly those from India. He pointed out that expelling diplomats means nothing if their replacements are allowed to enter without adequate security checks. Motz’s questions cut to the core of the Liberals’ “tough on interference” stance, revealing it as hollow when diplomats allegedly linked to interference can come and go unchecked.

Dane Lloyd challenged the government’s decision to leak information to The Washington Post rather than informing Canadians directly, highlighting a fundamental question: Why does the Canadian government prioritize international press over its own people? His frustration echoed what many Canadians feel—that their government is more interested in protecting its image on the world stage than ensuring Canadian sovereignty and safety.

The Bottom Line

This SECU Committee hearing confirmed the worst fears of Canadians: the Trudeau government is more interested in international optics than national security. The Liberals pick and choose which foreign threats to publicize, conveniently spinning some stories while keeping others under wraps—all based on what best serves their political agenda. If this is the government’s idea of protecting Canadian sovereignty, it’s no wonder Canadians are left questioning their safety.

And here’s where the Liberal hypocrisy hits new lows: instead of owning up to their failures, they tried to spin it, suggesting that Pierre Poilievre is somehow responsible for the foreign interference threats that have emerged on Trudeau’s watch. But let’s be real—if the Liberals had names of Conservative collaborators in interference plots, we all know they would be the first to name or leak them to the press. Instead, the Privy Council Office’s actions and The Washington Post leak were backed by none other than Trudeau’s own Prime Minister’s Office.

Conservatives like Raquel Dancho, Glen Motz, and Dane Lloyd came prepared to call out this hypocrisy. They demanded transparency and accountability—the very things Trudeau’s government seems reluctant to provide. This wasn’t a hearing on foreign interference; it was an exposé on the Trudeau government’s shameless double standards and lack of genuine concern for Canadian sovereignty.

In Canada’s darkest hours, when it comes to defending our sovereignty, it’s clear that it’s the Conservatives—not the Liberals—who are standing up for Canadians, demanding the truth, and holding this government to account. Trudeau’s Liberals have shown they’ll trade Canadian security for political optics, undermining everything Canada stands for. And Canadians deserve so much better.

Invite your friends and earn rewards

If you enjoy The Opposition with Dan Knight , share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.

Invite Friends

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

2025 Federal Election

Police Associations Endorse Conservatives. Poilievre Will Shut Down Tent Cities

Published on

From Conservative Party Communications

Under the Lost Liberal decade, homelessness has surged by 20% since 2018 and chronic homelessness has spiked 38%. In cities like Nanaimo, Victoria and London, the number of people living in tents and makeshift shelters has exploded. In Toronto alone, there were 82 encampments in early 2023—now there are over 200, with an estimated 1,400 in Ontario.

Yesterday, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre received the endorsement of the Toronto Police Association, the largest single association of its kind in Canada, representing approximately 8,000 civilian and uniformed members.

This follows the endorsement by the police associations of Durham, Peel, Barrie, and Sault Ste. Marie of the Conservative plan to stop the crime and keep Canadians safe, after the Liberal government’s easy bail and soft-on-crime policies unleashed a wave of violent crime.

“These men and women put their lives on the line every day to keep our streets safe,” Poilievre said. “Our Conservative team is honoured to have their support and will back them up with laws to help them protect all Canadians.”

Poilievre also announced that a new Conservative government will ensure that police have the legal power to remove dangerous encampments to end the homelessness and the mental health and addiction crisis that has trapped thousands in dangerous tent cities and make life unsafe for law-abiding Canadians who live near them.

“Parks where children played are now littered with needles. Small businesses are boarded up and whole blocks of storefronts are shuttered because their owners can’t afford to deal with constant break-ins and vandalism,” Pierre Poilievre said. “Public spaces belong to everyone, but law-abiding citizens, especially families and seniors, are being pushed out to accommodate chaos and violence.”

Canadian cities have a mixed record of dealing with encampments in public places, with some not acting because they don’t believe they have the legal authority to remove the camps. Conservatives will work with provinces and ensure law enforcement has the clear legal tools they need to remove encampments and give Canadians back the safe streets and public spaces they deserve.

A Poilievre-led government will do this by reversing the Liberals’ radical pro-drug policies and by:

  • Amending the Criminal Code to give police the tools to charge individuals when they endanger public safety or discourage the public from using, moving through, or otherwise accessing public spaces by setting up temporary structures, including tents.
  • Clarifying in law that police can dismantle illegal encampments and ensure individuals living in them who need help are connected with housing, addiction treatment, and mental health services.
  • Giving judges the power to order people charged for illegally occupying public spaces with a temporary structure and simple possession of illegal drugs to mandatory drug treatment.
  • Returning to a housing first approach to homelessness, ensuring people get off the streets into a stable place to live with the support they need to rebuild their lives.

Under the Lost Liberal decade, homelessness has surged by 20% since 2018 and chronic homelessness has spiked 38%. In cities like NanaimoVictoria and London, the number of people living in tents and makeshift shelters has exploded. In Toronto alone, there were 82 encampments in early 2023—now there are over 200, with an estimated 1,400 in Ontario.

These encampments are a direct result of radical Liberal policies such as drug decriminalization and unsafe supply. They are extremely dangerous for the people trapped in them, who endure overdoses, assaults, including sexual assaults, human trafficking, and even homicide, as well as the community around them.

Under the Poilievre plan, tent cities will no longer be an option—but recovery will be. Conservatives will give law enforcement the tools they need to help clean up our streets, deal with chronic offenders, and provide truly compassionate recovery and treatment where it is needed.

“Instead of getting people the help they need, the Liberals abandoned our communities to chaos,” Poilievre said. “Leaving people trapped by their addictions to live outdoors through Canadian winters, sick, malnourished, cold, wet and vulnerable is the furthest thing from compassionate.”

A Conservative government will also overhaul the Liberals’ dangerous pro-drug policies that have led to over 50,000 overdose deaths over the Lost Liberal Decade. Instead of flooding our streets with taxpayer-funded hard drugs, we will invest in recovery to break the cycle of despair and offer real hope.

Conservatives will allow judges to sentence offenders to mandatory treatment for addiction, and we will fund 50,000 addiction treatment spaces, ensuring that those struggling with substance use get the support they need to recover—because real compassion means helping people get better, not enabling their suffering.

In addition to these measures, Poilievre has a plan to end the soft-on-crime approach of the Lost Liberal Decade, end the chaos, and restore order and safety across Canada:​

  • Three-Strikes-and-You’re-Out Law: Individuals convicted of three serious offences will face a minimum prison term of 10 years and up to a life sentence, with no eligibility for bail, probation, parole, or house arrest.
  • Mandatory Life Sentences: Life imprisonment for those convicted of five or more counts of human trafficking, importing or exporting ten or more illegal firearms, or trafficking fentanyl.
  • Repeal of Bill C-75: Ending the Liberals’ catch-and-release policies to restore jail, not bail, for repeat violent offenders.
  • New Offense for Intimate Partner Assault: Creation of a specific offense for assault of an intimate partner, with the strictest bail conditions for those accused, and ensuring that murder of an intimate partner, one’s own child, or a partner’s child is treated as first-degree murder.
  • Consecutive Sentences for Repeat Violent Offenders: So there will no longer be sentencing discounts for multiple murderers.

Canadians can’t afford a fourth Liberal term of rising crime and chaos in our streets. We need a new Conservative government that will end the chaos, restore order on our streets and bring our loved ones home drug-free.

Continue Reading

2025 Federal Election

Next federal government should end corporate welfare for forced EV transition

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill and Jake Fuss

Corporate welfare simply shifts jobs and investment away from other firms and industries—which are more productive, as they don’t require government funding to be economically viable—to the governments’ preferred industries and firms, circumventing the preferences of consumers and investors. And since politicians spend other people’s money, they have little incentive to be careful investors.

General Motors recently announced the temporary closure of its electric vehicle (EV) manufacturing plant in Ontario, laying off 500 people because its new EV isn’t selling. The plant will shut down for six months despite hundreds of millions in government subsides financed by taxpayers. This is just one more example of corporate welfare—when governments subsidize favoured industries and companies—and it’s time for the provinces and the next federal government to eliminate it.

Between the federal government and Ontario government, GM received about $500 million to help fund its EV transition. But this is just one example of corporate welfare in the auto sector. Stellantis and Volkswagen will receive about $28 billion in government subsidies while Honda is promised $5 billion.

More broadly, from 2007 to 2019, the last pre-COVID year of data, the federal government spent an estimated $84.6 billion (adjusted for inflation) on corporate welfare while provincial and local governments spent another $302.9 billion. And crucially, these numbers exclude other forms of government support such as loan guarantees, direct investments and regulatory privileges, so the actual cost of corporate welfare during this period was much higher.

Of course, politicians claim that corporate welfare benefits workers. Yet according to a significant body of research, corporate welfare fails to generate widespread economic benefit. Think of it this way—if the businesses that received subsidies were viable to begin with, they wouldn’t need government support. So unprofitable companies are kept in business through governments’ support, which can prevent resources, including investment and workers, from moving to profitable companies, hurting overall economic growth.

Put differently, rather than fuelling economic growth, corporate welfare simply shifts jobs and investment away from other firms and industries—which are more productive, as they don’t require government funding to be economically viable—to the governments’ preferred industries and firms, circumventing the preferences of consumers and investors. And since politicians spend other people’s money, they have little incentive to be careful investors.

Governments also must impose higher tax rates on everyone else to pay for corporate welfare. In turn, higher tax rates discourage entrepreneurship and business investment—again, which fuels economic growth. And the higher the tax rates, the more economic activity they discourage.

GM’s EV plant shut down once again proves that when governments try to engineer the economy with corporate welfare, workers will ultimately lose. It’s time for the provinces and the next federal government—whoever it may be—to finally put an end to this costly and ineffective policy approach.

Tegan Hill

Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Trending

X