Connect with us

National

Trudeau’s $9 Million Condo Scandal: Elites Party in New York While Canadians Struggle at Home

Published

9 minute read

The Opposition with Dan Knight

From The Opposition News Network

By Dan Knight

It’s no secret that Justin Trudeau and his Liberal cronies love to live large. But this latest scandal? It’s a new low, even for them. We’re talking about a $9 million luxury condo—yes, you heard that right—on Billionaire’s Row in New York City, bought for a Trudeau-appointed diplomat while millions of Canadians are barely scraping by.

What’s worse? Trudeau himself seems to be right at the heart of this.

Let’s break down the facts that emerged during Meeting No. 137 of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates (OGGO), and you’ll see exactly how Trudeau’s government, under the watchful eye of his loyal minister Mélanie Jolie, pulled this off.

The Timeline of Trudeau’s Elitist Condo Scheme:

1. February 2023: Tom Clark, a former journalist and long-time friend of the Liberal elites, is appointed by Trudeau’s government as Consul General in New York. A cozy appointment, no doubt, for someone with deep ties to the Liberal establishment.

2. April 27, 2023: The Prime Minister himself—yes, Justin Trudeau—drops by Clark’s old New York residence for a dinner. Imagine the wine flowing and the conversation going, all while the rest of Canada is dealing with a collapsing economy, skyrocketing inflation, and an ongoing housing crisis.

3. April 28, 2023: The very next day, Trudeau and Clark are seen together in a motorcade cruising the streets of New York City. What exactly were they discussing? A new condo perhaps? It’s hard to believe that this kind of luxury real estate plan wasn’t at least mentioned during their cozy ride.

4. Spring/Summer 2023: Global Affairs Canada—overseen by Trudeau’s trusted Minister Jolie—suddenly identifies problems with the old residence. That’s right, just a few months after Trudeau’s visit, the decision is made to start looking for a new, more luxurious residence. Coincidence? Hardly.

5. April 17, 2024: An email from Global Affairs states that Tom Clark was instrumental in giving the green light for the purchase of the $9 million condo. The deal is pushed through, and the taxpayer is stuck with the bill.

6. July 12, 2024: The media finally breaks the story about the purchase of the $9 million luxury condo on Billionaire’s Row, one of the most expensive neighborhoods in New York. Public outrage begins to grow as details about this opulent purchase come to light.

7. July 25, 2024: A bogus correction is issued by Global Affairs, claiming that Tom Clark was not involved in the purchase. Conveniently, this correction comes one day after this very committee ordered documents on Clark’s involvement. Sound fishy? It should.

Clark’s Cozy Deal and Trudeau’s Role

Here’s what we know: Trudeau’s government made a $9 million purchase for Tom Clark, a man with deep ties to the Liberals, shortly after Trudeau himself visited Clark’s old residence. Now, emails show Clark was directly involved in the decision to buy the new place, but when he appeared before the committee, he suddenly couldn’t remember any involvement. Instead, he passed the blame onto Global Affairs Canada.

Now, here’s where it gets worse. Documents show that Clark was instrumental in the decision to buy this opulent residence. Emails from within Minister Mélanie Joly’s own department reveal that Clark himself gave the “green light” on the purchase. But when Clark appeared before the committee, he suddenly had a case of selective amnesia, denying any involvement in the decision. According to him, it was all Global Affairs Canada’s doing. He claims he was just an innocent bystander, touring the property “out of curiosity.”

Are we really supposed to believe that? This is a man who, for decades, worked in media and is well-versed in how power operates. The idea that Clark wasn’t aware of the optics or didn’t say a word when shown this mansion is laughable. What’s even more convenient is that a “correction” from Global Affairs magically appeared one day after the committee requested documents about Clark’s involvement. They want us to believe that all of this is just a coincidence, a bureaucratic hiccup. Sure.

But let’s not forget who runs Global Affairs—none other than Minister Mélanie Jolie, one of Trudeau’s closest allies. Jolie has twice appointed Clark to key roles: once as head of an advisory committee recommending appointments to CBC, and then again as Consul General in New York. And it’s Jolie’s department that now seems to be covering for Clark in this scandal, issuing a correction that conveniently contradicts their own internal emails.

So, who’s responsible? The buck stops with Minister Jolie—and ultimately with Justin Trudeau.

The Real Problem: Trudeau’s Elitism and Out-of-Touch Government

While Tom Clark is now enjoying his luxurious $9 million condo—complete with swimming lanes, golf simulators, and some of the most expensive appliances money can buy—ordinary Canadians are lining up at food banks, barely making rent, and trying to survive in Trudeau’s broken economy.

Let’s break down just how absurd this situation is: for this $9 million palace, Clark pays a laughable $1,800 a month. Meanwhile, the actual cost of living in a place like that? Around $42,000 a month. The difference? You, the Canadian taxpayer, are picking up the tab for Clark’s personal playground while you struggle to pay your bills.

And let’s be clear: Clark wasn’t some innocent bystander in this. He toured the condo, saw the luxury, and didn’t once think to say, “Hey, maybe this is too much, especially when people back home can’t even afford to live.” Why? Because this is the Trudeau mindset. The elites deserve the best, and the rest of us? We can pay for it.

Why Jolie Must Testify

This scandal goes straight to the top. Mélanie Jolie must come before the committee and explain how her department managed to spend $9 million on a condo for one of Trudeau’s buddies. She needs to answer for the emails that say Clark was involved, even though they’re now trying to claim he wasn’t. And, most of all, she needs to explain why this government continues to indulge its inner circle while Canadians suffer.

It’s time for real accountability. Trudeau and his ministers cannot continue to dodge these scandals, pretending like they have no part in the decisions being made. Minister Jolie needs to testify, and the Canadian public deserves answers. After all, you’re the ones paying for it.

This isn’t just about one condo; it’s about a government that’s lost touch with reality, that believes it can spend your money however it likes, with no consequences. The Liberals claim to care about the middle class, but when it comes down to it, they’re more interested in living large—and making sure their friends do too.

Minister Jolie, it’s time to step up and explain why you let this happen. Canadians are watching.

You can subscribe for free to The Opposition with Dan Knight, but for the full experience, you’ll need to upgrade your subscription.

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight

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

Addictions

So What ARE We Supposed To Do With the Homeless?

Published on

The Audit

David Clinton

 

Involuntary confinement is currently enjoying serious reconsideration

Sometimes a quick look is all it takes to convince me that a particular government initiative has gone off the rails. The federal government’s recent decision to shut down their electric vehicle subsidy program does feel like a vindication of my previous claim that subsidies don’t actually increase EV sales.

But no matter how hard I look at some other programs – and no matter how awful I think they are – coming up with better alternatives of my own isn’t at all straightforward. A case in point is contemporary strategies for managing urban homeless shelters. The problem is obvious: people suffering from mental illnesses, addictions, and poverty desperately need assistance with shelter and immediate care.

The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Ideally, shelters should provide integration with local healthcare, social, and employment infrastructure to make it easier for clients to get back on their feet. But integration isn’t cost-free. Because many shelters serve people suffering from serious mental illnesses, neighbors have to worry about being subjected to dangerous and criminal behavior.

Apparently, City of Toronto policy now requires their staff to obscure from public view the purchase and preparation of new shelter locations. The obvious logic driving the policy is the desire to avoid push back from neighbors worried about the impact such a facility could have.

As much as we might regret the not-in-my-back-yard (NIMBY) attitude the city is trying to circumvent, the neighbors do have a point. Would I want to raise my children on a block littered with used syringes and regularly visited by high-as-a-kite – and often violent – substance abusers? Would I be excited about an overnight 25 percent drop in the value of my home? To be honest, I could easily see myself fighting fiercely to prevent such a facility opening anywhere near where I live.

On the other hand, we can’t very well abandon the homeless. They need a warm place to go along with access to resources necessary for moving ahead with their lives.

One alternative to dorm-like shelters where client concentration can amplify the negative impacts of disturbed behavior is “housing first” models. The goal is to provide clients with immediate and unconditional access to their own apartments regardless of health or behaviour warnings. The thinking is that other issues can only be properly addressed from the foundation of stable housing.

Such models have been tried in many places around the world over the years. Canada’s federal government, for example, ran their Housing First program between 2009 and 2013. That was replaced in 2014 with the Homelessness Partnering Strategy which, in 2019 was followed by Reaching Home.

There have been some successes, particularly in small communities. But one look at the disaster that is San Francisco will demonstrate that the model doesn’t scale well. The sad fact is that Canada’s emergency shelters are still as common as ever: serving as many as 11,000 people a night just in Toronto. Some individuals might have benefited from the Home First-type programs, but they haven’t had a measurable impact on the problem itself.

The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Where does the money to cover those programs come from? According to their 2023 Financial Report, the City of Toronto spent $1.1 billion on social housing, of which $504 million came in funding transfers from other levels of government. Now we probably have to be careful to distinguish between a range of programs that could be included in those “social housing” figures. But it’s probably safe to assume that they included an awful lot of funding directed at the homeless.

So money is available, but is there another way to spend it that doesn’t involve harming residential neighborhoods?

To ask the question is to answer it. Why not create homeless shelters in non-residential areas?

Right off the top I’ll acknowledge that there’s no guarantee these ideas would work and they’re certainly not perfect. But we already know that the current system isn’t ideal and there’s no indication that it’s bringing us any closer to solving the underlying problems. So why not take a step back and at least talk about alternatives?

Good government is about finding a smart balance between bad options.

Put bluntly, by “non-residential neighborhood shelters” I mean “client warehouses”. That is, constructing or converting facilities in commercial, industrial, or rural areas for dorm-like housing. Naturally, there would be medical, social, and guidance resources available on-site, and frequent shuttle services back and forth to urban hubs.

If some of this sounds suspiciously like the forced institutionalization of people suffering from dangerous mental health conditions that existing until the 1970s, that’s not an accident. The terrible abuses that existed in some of those institutions were replaced by different kinds of suffering, not to mention growing street crime. But shutting down the institutions themselves didn’t solve anything. Involuntary confinement is currently enjoying serious reconsideration.

Clients would face some isolation and inconvenience, and the risk of institutional abuses can’t be ignored. But those could be outweighed by the positives. For one thing, a larger client population makes it possible to properly separate families and healthy individuals facing short-term poverty from the mentally ill or abusive. It would also allow for more resource concentration than community-based models. That might mean dedicated law enforcement and medical staff rather than reliance on the 9-1-1 system.

It would also be possible to build positive pathways into the system, so making good progress in the rural facility could earn clients the right to move to in-town transition locations.

This won’t be the last word spoken on this topic. But we’re living with a system that’s clearly failing to properly serve both the homeless and people living around them. It would be hard to justify ignoring alternatives.

The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Continue Reading

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

Trending

X