National
Trudeau Must Resign From Board Overseeing Leadership Race and Call for Investigation Into Foreign Interference
Calls for Trudeau’s Recusal From LPC Board, Citing Bias Toward Mark Carney
By Elbert K. Paul, CPA – CA
I am a registered Liberal and former director and chair of the audit committee of the Federal Liberal Agency of Canada “(FLAC)” and have served seven leaders of the Liberal Party of Canada “(LPC)”, including four Prime Ministers. I am a former partner of a major national accounting firm.
With the resignation of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the LPC has the urgent challenge to respond creatively. That should involve an invigorated and new vision of the profound needs of Canadians and the world. We are reminded of the ancient saying:
“Where there is no vision, the people perish…”
The purpose of this Op Ed is twofold – to demonstrate that:
Firstly, although the Prime Minister has resigned, Registered Liberals should demand that, effective immediately, he recuse himself from the LPC board overseeing the leadership process.
Secondly, Registered Liberals should demand an investigation into foreign interference in the LPC leadership process.
As reported in The Bureau on January 7, 2025, “Trudeau Clinging Like A ‘Low-Key Autocrat,’” Jeremy Nuttall correctly asserts:
“This isn’t normal. Not even close. Even the most eccentric of Prime Ministers in any other commonwealth country would likely be licking their wounds in Ibiza by now, watching the chaos unfold from a safe distance. Not this Prime Minister… the only bar lower at this point would be if Trudeau goes back on his promise to resign. I’ll really believe he’s gone when he’s gone.”
And Bloomberg‘s December 20, 2024 report raises legitimate concerns over a conflict of interest and apprehension of bias that exists with the Prime Minister and Mark Carney. Specifically, it reported that Trudeau informed Chrystia Freeland on December 13, 2024, that she would soon be out as finance minister. She was deeply upset and felt betrayed. Mark Carney was taking over, Trudeau
told her.
This action toward Chrystia Freeland suggests that the Prime Minister may favour Mark Carney. The Prime Minister is not only the LPC leader, he is also on the board of the LPC. The LPC board will be making key decisions regarding the process for selection of a new leader. To date, the leading candidates are Mark Carney and Chrystia Freeland. As a result of his conduct, the Prime Minister is in a conflict of interest and there is an apprehension of bias in favour of Mark Carney.
It is compellingly rational to demand that, effective immediately, the Prime Minister recuse himself from the Liberal Party of Canada board overseeing the Liberal Party of Canada leadership process.
I recommend in my second objective that Registered Liberals should demand an investigation into possible foreign interference in the LPC leadership process.
On the current LPC website it states that the party looks forward to running a secure, fair, and national race that will elect the next Leader of the party.
As reported by the CBC on January 10, 2025, in response to concerns about foreign interference, the Liberal leadership contest now requires voters to be Canadian citizens or permanent residents. Liberal Party national campaign co-chair Terry Duguid tells Power & Politics that the party will verify the status of registered voters.
However, my Op Ed dated March 11, 2024, based on The Bureau’s reporting, demonstrates that the Liberal government, led by the dishonorable leadership of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, has failed to address the following vital and relevant issues:
a. Expedite Revisions to Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist
Financing Act S.C. 2000, c. 17 r.
b. Immediately respond to the B.C. Cullen Commission Report,
c. Improve the capacity of The Office of the Superintendent of Financial
Institutions
d. Implement immediately a foreign registry like that of the U.S. and Great
Britain.
Also, as reported in my March 2024, Op Ed in The Bureau, an investigation should be initiated to address contributions totaling $65,000 to the Prime Minister’s Papineau Federal Liberal Association. These contributions involve possible contravention of Section 363(1) of the Election Act, being ineligible
contributions from a foreign person or entity. This reporting is detailed in Wilful Blindness Third Edition by Sam Cooper—essential reading for insights into malign foreign powers infiltrating Canada’s political systems, eroding democracy, and threatening prosperity.
To address the profound concern of Registered Liberals and the Canadian public on the issue of foreign interference I make the following recommendation to be implemented immediately:
Federal Liberal Agency of Canada, as chief agent of the Liberal Party of Canada “(LPC)” and independent from the LPC Board, should engage Price Waterhouse Coopers “(PWC)”, being the LPC external auditors, to investigate foreign interference in the current LPC leadership election process. The purpose of this
investigation is to demonstrate the efficacy and legitimacy of the LPC leadership process in addressing potential foreign interference to Registered Liberals and the Canadian public.
There is a precedent for this proposed action. I, in my capacity of chair of the FLAC audit committee, along with others, on March 25, 2013, engaged PWC to perform certain procedures to ensure the efficacy and effectiveness of the voting system. PWC reported the results of their investigation to the LPC National Meeting.
Conclusion
The Canadian liberal democracy is a safeguard against autocracy and includes many benefits, including individual rights, universal suffrage and participation, separation of powers, peaceful conflict resolution, economic opportunity and equality, government transparency and accountability, rule of law and judicial
independence, and self-critique.
We are profoundly blessed in Canada with abundant natural resources and a gifted ethnic mosaic from around the world. However, there are malign foreign powers infiltrating our political systems and eroding the extraordinary benefits of Canadian liberal democracy. We are reminded of our call to vigilance in our National Anthem:
O Canada!
Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all of us command.
With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!
From far and wide,O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee
The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
National
It’s Been One Week
Imagine the relief they’re feeling. Photo from the voluminous PW files
Paul Wells
Hold it now and watch the hoodwink/ As I make you stop, think
Maybe the Americans assume we’re already part of their country because our leaders won’t get off their TV shows. Politico reports that Justin Trudeau’s office called Jen Psaki on Thursday morning and asked whether she’d interview Canada’s prime minister pro tem for her Sunday MSNBC political show. The PMO’s timing was excellent: Psaki was dropping a kid off at school, so she had excess childcare capacity at precisely the moment she was being offered quality time with somebody high-maintenance.
Trudeau had a message to deliver about Canada-US relations, and he was eager to deliver it to the seventh highest-rated show on MSNBC. He also paid his regards to Jake Tapper, who gets fully one-fifth the viewers of his Fox competitors.
Trudeau’s message to his tiny bespoke audiences was straightforward: that Donald Trump wants to talk about annexing Canada because he doesn’t want to talk about the economic costs of his own tariff policy. Trump’s advisors were said to be working this week on ways to limit those costs. Talk of costs isn’t guaranteed to change Trump’s mind, but nothing is. I don’t have a secret smarter policy I’m keeping in my back pocket; the situation is what it is. Danielle Smith went to Mar-a-Lago — a gambit as legitimate as Trudeau’s visit or anybody else’s — but didn’t come away sounding confident that she’d had better results than anyone else.
Even Stephen Harper — also appearing on a U.S. podcast — sounded worried and perplexed by Trump’s thinking. Still, Canada’s last Conservative prime minister delivered a rebuttal of Trump that was orders of magnitude more on-topic and specific than anything we’ve yet heard from the next Conservative prime minister. There’s playing tough, and then there’s being tough.
Today (Jan 14) is the last day to subscribe to this newsletter at my original rate of $5 a month or $50 a year. Tomorrow the rate goes up to $8 a month/ $80 a year. Anyone who subscribes at the lower rate will remain locked in at that rate for as long as they remain a subscriber.
Trudeau will do what he does until the Liberals select his successor. His itinerary for Tuesday says “No public events scheduled,” yet again. If he has any particular message for Canadians at T2 Minus Six Days, he is in no hurry to deliver it. I think something in him broke after the Toronto—St. Paul’s by-election defeat at the end of June. Sure, he’s talked to Mark Critch and the hot-sauce guy in Quebec. But the fight was out of him long before he made it official. The impulse in almost any politician to tell you exactly what they’re up to — the yearning François-Philippe Champagne has at triple strength — it’s all but vanished from Trudeau for months now. I don’t think it’s because he’s decided to resign. I think if he had managed to stare down his Liberal critics over the holidays, if he still had one more campaign ahead of him, he’d still basically be waiting. In that alternate universe, waiting for the voters to deliver their verdict.
Instead Trudeau let his party’s late-blooming internal opposition win, and now the Liberals are having a bad time of it. I have to assume that in some corner of his psyche, he enjoys seeing them squirm. All he wanted to do was receive the voters’ judgment. There would have been grim realism in letting him. But the Liberal caucus, docile in October, panicked and bolted in December after Chrystia Freeland quit. So now they get to come up with a better idea.
By 2021 or so, the people who’d left the Trudeau government started to look like a better cabinet than the ones who’d stayed. Similarly, a lot of the talent in the emerging Liberal leadership race is in the people who are sitting it out: Dominic LeBlanc, Anita Anand, Champagne, Mélanie Joly if you like. Steve MacKinnon would have been interesting to watch as an underdog. He speaks both official languages better than most MPs speak either, and after an early defeat in 2011, he reacted in the old-fashioned way: by figuring out how to get better at politics. Oh well.
Does anybody doubt the crew who aren’t running for the leadership will have a more pleasant 2025 than Mark Carney, Chrystia Freeland, Christy Clark, Karina Gould, Chandra Arya and That Other Guy? Frenzied parallel campaigns to raise money and recruit supporters. Gigantic questions they’d rather avoid. Party horse-race polls that have exited the realm of arithmetic and turned into Escher drawings. And waiting just over the horizon, cracking their knuckles: the voters of Canada.
Realistically it’ll come down to Freeland and Carney, if they both run. A study in contrasts: she’s from Alberta but couldn’t save her former chief of staff who ran in the riding next to Freeland’s last June. He’s from Alberta but has been flirting with electoral politics since the Obama presidency. “I’ve just started thinking about it,” Carney told Jon Stewart, whose return has driven The Daily Show to fully 40% of Colbert’s ratings. Just started thinking about it? Where’s he been all his life?
I wasn’t kidding, not one tiny bit, when I wrote last week that the least Carney can do is cough up the task force report on the economy that his party’s current leader commissioned from him four months ago. This should not seem like a clever gotcha from one of our nation’s premier snarky pundits. It should be obvious that serious people finish a job, and that the best measure of Carney’s insight and instincts is the work he was theoretically already doing when things got weird.
An obvious question for Freeland is why the Nanos polling spread between Liberals and Conservatives is seven points wider than it was the day before she left the cabinet. Another is whether the “costly political gimmicks” in the Fall Economic Statement she declined to deliver were the first she’d seen.
They’ve both done great things. Carney was appointed to run two central banks by two Conservative prime ministers, neither of whom ever had a word of criticism for his work. He delivered the smoothest possible Brexit even though he hated the idea. Freeland basically picked the Trudeau government up from the wrong side of relations with Russia and dropped it on the right side. Neither needs my permission to march into the history books. But if you think either is a natural political talent, you’ll find the next couple of months hard to watch.
Maybe one of the Liberal candidates will develop the habit of answering questions when asked. It would have the virtue of novelty. It worked well for Harper on that American podcast. Pierre Poilievre is still pivoting to message. Last week he was asked why Elon Musk seems to like him. “If I ever get a chance to meet Musk, I would say, how do we make this an economy where we bring home hundreds of billions of dollars of investment to Canada?” Smooth. Except Musk makes no secret of his answer: ban union labour. Which fits poorly with some of Poilievre’s pro-union marketing.
Two years ago three of Poilievre’s MPs met with Christine Anderson, a German eurodeputy from the AfD party. Poilievre called her views “vile” and said they “have no place in Canada.” Musk has been campaigning nearly full-time for Anderson’s party in German legislative elections.
I’m not trying to pin AfD’s politics on Poilievre. I’m just pointing out that once he no longer has Trudeau to kick around, the internal contradictions in Poilievre’s positions will become harder to ignore.
This week Jenni Byrne, Poilievre’s lead gatekeeper, came in for criticism when she criticized Erin O’Toole for saying nice things about Anita Anand. “For anyone unsure why Erin is no longer leader of the Conservative Party…. [Anand] supported DEI [diversity, equity and inclusion] policies like name, rank and pronouns. Tampons in men’s rooms, etc.” Much of the criticism amounts to dismay that Byrne could be so mean. I could hardly care less. But I do wonder where Byrne expects Canadian soldiers to fight, and alongside whom. Here’s a story on pronoun use in the U.S. Navy and Marines. Here’s one on the UK’s Ministry of Defence offering pronoun guidance while Boris Johnson was prime minister. Here’s NATO’s gender-inclusive language manual. When congratulating oneself on preferring a warrior culture to woke culture, it’s handy to have the first clue what’s going on in other warrior cultures.
Mostly I wonder how anyone could look at a Navy [UPDATE: That should read “Air Force” — pw] veteran congratulating a former Minister of Defence and think, before anything else, “But the tampons!” Poland, and Elon Musk’s friend Donald Trump, want member states in the woke NATO alliance to spend five percent of GDP on national defence. All of the Liberals and all of the Conservatives in all of Canada’s little schoolyard arguments have never come up with a plan to get to two. I know we all get excited about our little feuds, but after an election comes, whoever wins will have to provide real government for a real country in a real world. That’s harder than tweeting.
Subscribe to Paul Wells
Politics and culture as though they mattered.
COVID-19
Canadian parents wary of COVID, flu shots for children
From LifeSiteNews
Government research has found that Canadian parents do not plan to inject their children with COVID or flu shots, pointing to the ineffectiveness of the shots and potential side effects
Canadian parents are remaining wary of COVID and flu shots for children despite ongoing publicity campaigns.
According to in-house research by the Public Health Agency obtained by Blacklock’s Reporter, many Canadian parents do not plan to inject their children with the experimental COVID shots, pointing to the ineffectiveness of the shots and potential side effects.
“Continued monitoring of parental knowledge and views around Covid-19 and influenza are important to adapt public communication and education accordingly,” the report said.
“Monitoring parental attitudes is essential to predict expected vaccine take-up and guide education and awareness efforts to promote vaccination,” it continued.
In Canada, COVID shots are both approved and encouraged for all children over six months of age, despite the fact that the latest Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 shots for children under 12 were only granted emergency use authorization in the U.S.
The research asked parents if they planned to give their children updated COVID shots, to which only 17 percent said they “definitely will”; 26 percent said they “probably won’t”; and 28 percent said they “definitely won’t.”
Those who planned to refuse the reoccurring shots revealed they were “concerned there was not enough research on the vaccine,” questioned the effectiveness of the shots, mistrusted the government information surrounding COVID shots, or their doctor had never mentioned it.
Similarly, 19.5 percent reported being “somewhat hesitant” to give their child the COVID shot, while 21 percent said they were “very hesitant.”
Likewise, parents were hesitant to give their children annual flu shots, over concerns of it being unnecessary and potential side effects.
According to 2021 data, only 17.49 percent of children ages five to 11 in Canada have received at least one dose of the COVID injection. Additionally, of elementary school-age kids who have had both doses of the COVID shots, only 0.6 percent are counted as “fully vaccinated.”
Parents’ hesitancy to jab their young children comes after research has proven that the COVID shots are not only unnecessary but pose serious health risks, especially to children.
Since the start of the COVID crisis, official data shows that the virus has been listed as the cause of death for less than 20 kids in Canada under age 15. This is out of six million children in the age group.
The COVID jabs approved in Canada have also been associated with severe side effects, such as blood clots, rashes, miscarriages, and even heart attacks in young, healthy men.
The mRNA shots have also been linked to a multitude of negative and often severe side effects in children.
A report from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) showed at least 21,000 side effects, with 24 deaths of American children ages 12 to 17 after COVID shots.
-
Uncategorized2 days ago
The problem with deficits and debt
-
Business2 days ago
Undemocratic tax hike will kill Canadian jobs: Taxpayers Federation
-
International2 days ago
California’s Fire Catastrophe Is Largely a Result of Bad Government Policies
-
MacDonald Laurier Institute1 day ago
Macdonald should not be judged through the warped lens of presentism
-
Economy2 days ago
Fixing the Trudeau – Guilbeault Policy Mess May Take Longer Than We’d Like – Here’s Why
-
Alberta1 day ago
Judge reverses suspension against Alberta police officer for speaking at Freedom Convoy rally
-
Alberta2 days ago
Alberta’s wildland firefighters are on their way to assist in California
-
Business15 hours ago
Proposed federal tax hike would make Canada’s top capital gains tax rate among the highest of 37 advanced countries