Connect with us

Business

Salary costs in Prime Minister’s Office increase under Trudeau

Published

3 minute read

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

By Ryan Thorpe 

Like all areas of Ottawa’s ballooning bureaucracy, the cost and size of the Prime Minister’s Office has increased under the Trudeau government.

The inflation-adjusted cost of staffing the PMO has risen by 16 per cent under the watch of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, according to access-to-information records obtained by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

Salary costs for the 103 staffers in the PMO came to $10.5 million in 2022-23. That figure does not represent overall compensation for PMO staff (including benefits), but rather base salary, according to the records.

Taxpayers are now on the hook for an additional $3.2 million in annual PMO salary costs over 2014-15, the last full year former prime minister Stephen Harper was in office.

“The cost of running the PMO has increased under Trudeau, but it’s a good bet most Canadians don’t think they’re getting any better performance from the prime minister,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “If Trudeau can’t find savings right under his nose, how can taxpayers trust him to cut the fat across government?”

The growth in PMO staff comes at a time when the Trudeau government has been ballooning the federal bureaucracy across the board.

Both the number and cost of the federal bureaucracy has exploded under Trudeau’s watch, according to other government records obtained by the CTF.

The number of federal bureaucrats increased by 42 per cent under Trudeau, with more than 108,000 new bureaucrats added to the government payroll.

Spending on federal bureaucrats hit a record high $67.4 billion in 2022-23, representing a 68 per cent increase since 2016.

The size of the federal c-suite has also expanded, with the number of executives increasing by 42 per cent under Trudeau.

The Trudeau government has handed out more than $1 billion in bonuses since 2015 and more than one million pay raises in the last four years.

Meanwhile, spending on consultants also reached a record high, with planned expenditures for 2023-24 sitting at $21.6 billion.

“Everywhere you look – the PMO, the federal c-suite, the bureaucracy – the cost and size of government is out of control,” Terrazzano said. “Trudeau must take air out of Ottawa’s ballooning bureaucracy and the place to start is his own office.”

PMO staff costs, government records obtained by the CTF

Fiscal year

Number of PMO staff

PMO salary costs

2014-15

94

$7,258,436

2015-16

74

$6,353,188

2016-17

84

$7,462,686

2017-18

99

$8,155,068

2018-19

100

$8,479,353

2019-20

90

$8,536,672

2020-21

99

$9,840,834

2021-22

94

$9,383,328

2022-23

103

$10,536,649

Total

$76,006,214

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

Long Ignored Criminal Infiltration of Canadian Ports Lead Straight to Trump Tariffs

Published on

Sam Cooper

Briefings to Liberal Government on Chinese Infiltration of Vancouver Port and Canada’s Opioid Scourge Ignored

Trump Tariffs Loom as Critics Decry Ottawa’s “Fox in the Hen House” Approach to Border Security

As President Donald Trump readies sweeping tariffs against Canada on Saturday—citing Ottawa’s failure to secure its shared North American borders from fentanyl originating in China—The Bureau has obtained a remarkable December 1999 document from a senior law enforcement official, revealing Ottawa’s longstanding negligence in securing Vancouver’s port against drug trafficking linked to Chinese shipping entities.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The letter, drafted by former Crown prosecutor Scott Newark and addressed to Ottawa’s Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC), urged the body to reconsider explosive findings from a leaked RCMP and CSIS report detailing the infiltration of Canada’s “porous” borders by Chinese criminal networks.

Titled “Re: S.I.R.C. Review in relation to Project Sidewinder,” Newark’s letter alleges systemic failures that enabled Chinese State Council owned shipping giant COSCO and Triads with suspected Chinese military ties to penetrate Vancouver’s port system. He further asserts that federal authorities ignored repeated briefings and warnings from Canadian law enforcement—warnings based on intelligence gathered by Canadian officials in Hong Kong, who initiated the Sidewinder review.

Newark also warned that Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chrétien’s decision to dismantle Canada’s specialized Ports Police and privatize national port control had left the country dangerously exposed to foreign criminal networks, noting he had personally briefed the Canadian government on these concerns as early as 1996.

Addressing his letter to SIRC’s chair, Quebec lawyer Paule Gauthier, Newark wrote:

“As the former (1994-98) Executive Officer of the Canadian Police Association, I was assigned responsibility for dealing with the issue of the federal government’s changes to control of the national ports and policing therein.”

“This involved close examination of matters such as drug, weapon, and people smuggling through the national ports and, in particular, both the growing presence of organized criminal groups at ports and the ominous hazard control of those ports by such groups represented.”

Newark’s letter goes on to allege widespread failures in Ottawa that facilitated Chinese Triad infiltration of Vancouver’s port, revealing federal authorities’ reluctance to act on warnings from RCMP officer Garry Clement and immigration control officer Brian McAdam—former Canadian officials based in Hong Kong who had sounded the alarm, prompting the Sidewinder review.

Newark explained to SIRC’s chair that, during his tenure as Executive Officer of the Canadian Police Association, he prepared approximately fifty detailed policy briefs for the government and regularly appeared before parliamentary committees and in private ministerial briefings.

“I can assure you that in all of that time, no clearer warning was ever given by Canada’s rank and file police officers to the national government than what was done in our unsuccessful attempt to prevent the disbandment of the specialized Canada Ports Police in combination with the privatization of the ports themselves,” Newark’s letter to SIRC states.

The letter continues, noting that in October 1996, Newark met with Chrétien’s Transport Minister David Anderson—later addressing the Transport Committee—to highlight the imminent threat posed by Asian organized crime’s infiltration of port operations. Newark’s written briefing to the Minister underscored the gravity of the situation with a blunt question:

“Who exactly are the commercial port operators?”

Citing the Anderson briefing document, Newark’s letter to SIRC states that Anderson had been warned:

“We are, for example, aware of serious concerns amongst the international law enforcement community surrounding the ownership of ports and container industries in Asia and, in particular, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the People’s Republic of China. There is simply no longer any doubt that drugs like heroin are coming from these destinations through the Port of Vancouver, moved by organized criminal gangs whose assets include ‘legitimate’ properties.”

The Anderson briefing also referenced a British Columbia anti-gang unit report, titled “Organized Crime on Vancouver Waterfront,” which made clear that the Longshoreman’s Union had been infiltrated by the Hells Angels.

“The movement of goods through Canada’s ports requires an independence in policing that is impossible without public control,” the report warned.

It concluded:

“This report should be taken as a specific warning to this Government that, prior to downloading operational control over the ports themselves to private interests, Government be absolutely certain as to who owns what—and that it can continue that certainty with power to refuse acquisition of port assets in the future.”

Scott Newark’s letter to SIRC then turns to new intelligence—gathered from Canadian and U.S. officials—that further underscored the vulnerability created by Chrétien’s border policies.

“To now learn that law enforcement and public officials in Canada and the United States have linked a company (COSCO), granted docking and other facilities in Vancouver, to Asian organized crime, arms and drug smuggling is, to say the least, disturbing,” Newark’s December 1999 letter states.

“That this company, its principals, subsidiaries, and partners have been associated with various military agencies of a foreign government—agencies themselves identified by Canadian and American officials as having unhealthy connections to Triad groups—makes a bad situation even worse.”

Newark next addressed the broader implications of Canada’s failure to enforce border security, particularly in relation to the deportation of foreign criminals—a process he had sought to reform while serving with the Canadian Police Association.

Drawing on his experience, he described a deeply flawed immigration enforcement system, one that allowed individuals with serious criminal records to remain in Canada indefinitely. The problem, he wrote, was twofold: not only were foreign criminals able to enter Canada with ease, but authorities also failed to deport those with outstanding arrest warrants.

Newark recounted how, in 1996, a Cabinet Minister requested that he meet with Brian McAdam, a former senior foreign service officer in Hong Kong who had spent years uncovering organized crime’s grip on Canada’s immigration system. McAdam’s detailed revelations, he wrote, had directly led to the launch of Project Sidewinder.

Newark told SIRC that even after leaving the Canadian Police Association in 1998, he remained in contact with McAdam and other officials working to expose this vast and complex national security risk posed by foreign criminal networks.

It was this ongoing communication that led to an even more alarming discovery. Newark wrote that he was stunned to learn that Canada’s government had not only terminated Project Sidewinder but had gone so far as to destroy some related files.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Newark suggests SIRC’s chair, in her review of Sidewinder, should determine whether “Sidewinder should not have been cancelled … why such inappropriate action was taken and at whose direction this was done.”

He concludes that SIRC should also freshly examine why intelligence reporting from the Canadian officials in Hong Kong, Brian McAdam and Garry Clement had been ignored in Ottawa.

Newark’s letter to SIRC says these failures to act on intelligence included the “Inappropriate granting of visas to Triad members or associates” and “Granting of docking facilities with attendant consequences to COSCO”—and “Failure of CIC and Foreign Affairs to respond appropriately to the various information supplied by McAdam and Clement in relation to material pertaining to Sidewinder.”

In an exclusive interview with The Bureau, Garry Clement, who contributed to investigations referenced in Newark’s letter, corroborated many of its claims and provided further insight. Clement recalled his role in Project Sunset, a 1990s investigation into Chinese Triads’ efforts to gain control over Vancouver’s ports.

“I can remember having a discussion with Scott when he wrote that to SIRC because Scott and I go back a long time,” Clement said. “I knew about him writing on it, but I knew it was also buried.”

He described his own intelligence work during the same period:

“I wrote in the nineties when I was the liaison officer in Hong Kong, a very long intelligence brief on the Chinese wanting to basically acquire or build out a port at the Surrey Fraser Docks area. And it was going to be completely controlled by that time, with Triad influence, but it was going to be controlled by China.”

Clement expressed frustration that decades of warnings had gone unheeded:

“The bottom line is that here we are almost 40 years later, talking about an issue that was identified in the ‘90s about our ports and allowing China to have free access—and nothing has been done over that period of time.”

Newark’s urgent recommendation for SIRC to reconsider Sidewinder’s warnings on Vancouver’s ports was never acted upon.

“We still don’t have Port Police. We got nobody overseeing them,” Clement added. “The ports themselves, it’s sort of like putting a fox in the hen house and saying, ‘Behave yourself.’”

Finally, when asked about the Trudeau government’s claim this week that Canada is responsible for only one percent of the fentanyl entering the United States—a figure reported widely in Canadian media—Clement’s response was unequivocal.

“The fact that we’ve become a haven for transnational organized crime, it’s internationally known,” he said. “So when I read that, with the fentanyl—Trump is wrong in that there’s less than 1% of our fentanyl going to the United States. That’s a crock of shit. If you look at the two super labs that were taken down in British Columbia—I think there’s three now—the amount they were capable of producing was more than the whole Vancouver population could have used in 10 years. So we know that Vancouver has become a transshipment point to North America for opiates and cocaine and other drugs because it’s a weak link, and enforcement is not capable of keeping up with transnational organized crime.”

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

That opinion is evidently acknowledged by British Columbia Premier David Eby, according to documents from Canada’s Foreign Interference Commission that say Eby sought meetings with Justin Trudeau’s National Security Advisor.

A record from the Hogue Commission, sanitized for public release, outlines the “context and drivers” behind Eby’s concerns, including “foreign interference; election security; countering fentanyl, organized crime, money laundering, corruption.”

The documents state Ottawa’s Privy Council Office—which provides advice to Justin Trudeau’s cabinet—had recommended that British Columbia continue to work with the federal government on initiatives like the establishment of a new Canada Financial Crimes Agency to bolster the nation’s ability to respond swiftly to complex financial crimes.

Additionally, the PCO highlighted that Canada, the United States, and Mexico were supposedly collaborating on strategies to reduce the supply of fentanyl, including addressing precursor chemicals and preventing the exploitation of commercial shipping channels—a critical area where British Columbia, and specifically the Port of Vancouver, plays a significant role.

Eby acknowledged the concerns again this week in an interview with Macleans.

“I understood Trump’s concerns about drugs coming in. We’ve got a serious fentanyl problem in B.C.; we see the precursor chemicals coming into B.C. from China and Mexico. We see ties to Asian and Mexican organized crime groups. We’d been discussing all of that with the American ambassador and fellow governors. That’s why it was such a strange turnaround, from ‘Hey, we’re working together on this!’ to suddenly finding ourselves in the crosshairs.”

Yet, despite Eby’s claims of intergovernmental efforts, critics—including Garry Clement—argue that nothing has changed. Vancouver’s port remains alarmingly vulnerable, a decades-old concern that continues to resurface as fentanyl and other illicit drugs flood North American markets.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Continue Reading

Business

Canada’s energy exports to US hit with 10% Trump tariff over fentanyl crisis

Published on

From The Center Square

By

American’s northern neighbor will get the same 25% tariff except with a 10% tariff on Canadian energy resources. That will continue “until Canada cooperates with the U.S. against drug traffickers and on border security,” the statement said.

President Donald Trump on Saturday moved to hold Mexico, Canada and China accountable with tariffs on the nation’s top three trading partners, raising concerns about the potential for higher prices.

“This was done through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act because of the major threat of illegal aliens and deadly drugs killing our Citizens, including fentanyl,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “We need to protect Americans, and it is my duty as President to ensure the safety of all. I made a promise on my Campaign to stop the flood of illegal aliens and drugs from pouring across our Borders, and Americans overwhelmingly voted in favor of it.”

Trump put in place a 25% tariff “to be paid for by Mexican producers until Mexico cooperates with the U.S. in the fight against drugs,” a White House statement said.

Tariffs are taxes paid by the companies that import goods.

Fentanyl is an opioid blamed for more than 75% of U.S. overdose deaths.

“Mexican cartels are the world’s leading traffickers of fentanyl, meth, and other drugs,” the statement said. “These cartels have an alliance with the government of Mexico and endanger the national security and public health of the United States.”

American’s northern neighbor will get the same 25% tariff except with a 10% tariff on Canadian energy resources. That will continue “until Canada cooperates with the U.S. against drug traffickers and on border security,” the statement said.

Trump’s Canadian tariff is further aimed a stopping illegal border crossings.

“Illegal border crossings from Canada reached historic new highs every year for the last four fiscal years,” the White House said.

For China, the tariff will be an additional 10% until it cooperates with the U.S. on the fight against fentanyl.

“The Chinese Communist Party has subsidized Chinese chemical companies to export fentanyl,” the White House said. “China not only fails to stem the source of illicit drugs but actively helps this business.”

The tariff’s were posted on The White House’s X account Saturday afternoon.

Mexico, Canada and China are the top three U.S. trading partners responsible for about 40% of U.S. imports in 2024. Some economists say the move could push prices higher for U.S. consumers. It could also start a trade war. All three countries have promised to respond in kind.

Trump initially said the tariffs would be put in place on Jan. 20, but didn’t immediately follow through on that. Rather, he waited until Feb. 1.

Trump promised during his inaugural address that tariffs would make America “rich as hell.”

Trump also promised tariffs would help lower the tax burden on Americans.

“Instead of taxing our citizens to enrich other countries, we will tariff and tax foreign countries to enrich our citizens,” the president said.

Trump’s tariffs could generate $450 billion in revenue a year, according to adviser and investor John Paulson. The amount such tariffs would ultimately bring in depends on multiple factors, including how other nations respond to U.S. tariffs. That makes it “highly uncertain,” according to credit-rating agency Moody’s.

Trump previously said he couldn’t guarantee that his tariff plans will not raise prices for U.S. consumers.

Tariffs could raise prices for U.S. consumers and slow economic growth. S&P Global, a credit-rating agency, reported that Trump’s proposed tariffs could boost inflation by 1.8% and lower U.S. economic output by 1%, according to a post-election report.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Friday Canada was prepared to respond.

“If the president does choose to implement any tariffs against Canada, we’re ready with a response – a purposeful, forceful but reasonable immediate response,” Trudeau said.

“We won’t relent until tariffs are removed,” the prime minister said.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said Friday that Mexico “will always maintain dialogue with the U.S. and that Mexico has multiple plans for a response.”

The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA, governs trade between the U.S. and its northern and southern neighbors. It went into force on July 1, 2020, and Trump signed the deal.

U.S. goods and services trade with USMCA totaled an estimated $1.8 trillion in 2022. Exports were $789.7 billion and imports were $974.3 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade deficit with USMCA was $184.6 billion in 2022, according to the Office of the United States Trade Representative.

Continue Reading

Trending

X