to  |
Category Archives: Uncategorized
Nobody wants to admit the truth: Mass immigration is fuelling the housing crisis Liberal immigration rules are hurting wages while house building is miles off the paceJEREMY WARNER10 May 2023 • 1:00pm
It’s the reason that dares not speak its name, the elephant in the room, as it were – burgeoning net immigration. Britain’s insanely high, and increasingly 
The Bibby Stockholm accommodation barge is tugged into Falmouth, Cornwall, CREDIT: Matt Keeble/PA WireA barge to house 500 asylum seekers has arrived in the UK as part of the Government’s efforts to move migrants out of hotels.The Bibby Stockholm, a barge that has been used to house oil and construction workers, is to be refitted and refurbished in Falmouth before being towed to Portland Port, near Weymouth in Dorset ready to take on board the asylum seekers in June.It currently has 222 rooms with en suite bathrooms, and leisure facilities such as pool tables and a gym and catering but it will be converted to take up to 506 asylum seekers who are expected to be required to share rooms in bunk beds with en suite washing facilities.The scheme is, however, facing opposition from local Tory MP Richard Drax, and Dorset council who are considering legal action to block the “inappropriate” plan. David Sidwick, Dorset’s police and crime commissioner, is demanding extra funding from the Home Office to pay for the additional costs of policing the site.Mr Drax told The Telegraph: “It is a barge for 220 that is going to take 506. Even if you double up the rooms that still leaves 60 without a room. Some will have to be three or four beds.“What are the conditions going to be like in a barge with 506 young men from all over the world – some possibly disturbed mentally – couped up in a quasi-prison?”
A communal living area inside the 222-bedroom barge CREDIT: Bibby Marine LtdeCouncillors from Portland town council and Dorset council were told last week that the barge will be fenced off within the harbour to stop migrants wandering around. Portland is a secure busy port area that hosts commercial ships and cruise liners, which are expected to bring some 130,000 passengers this year.Councillors were also told that there would be hourly bus services to take migrants out of the port and on trips to Weymouth with an 11pm voluntary curfew to return.Under current asylum rules, migrants are free to come and go but those who stay out overnight are called by phone to establish why they have not come back. Any who remain out for more than seven days, or 14 calendar days and nights within any six-month period, face removal from the site.Pete Roper, the mayor of Portland, said that in meetings with Home Office and port officials the councils had called for additional exercise and leisure facilities on the portside because of the limits within the barge for only a small gym and entertainment such as pool. It will also have prayer rooms.“I get a sense that the personal safety of the women on the island is rising to the top of the list. There is a lot of hearsay floating around at the moment regarding the behaviour of asylum seekers at hotels in other parts of the country,” said Mr Roper.“That just appears to be hearsay. It is difficult to get any concrete confirmation that this is in fact happening. But it is now getting to be a major concern because of the fact that it’s on our doorstep down the road in Falmouth.”Dorset Council said it still had “serious reservations about the appropriateness of Portland Port in this scenario and remains opposed to the proposals”.Mr Sidwick said: “I have been and remain in regular contact with the Home Secretary and policing minister, with regard to the funding required to meet the extra policing needs that this project will entail. I am determined that the funding should not come from the current police budget or from the people of Dorset.”Bill Reeves, the chief executive of Portland Port, has sought to reassure local residents about the plans. He claimed that housing migrants at the port would create new jobs and attempted to dispel fears that asylum seekers would cause trouble to local residents, saying they would be given advice about “cultural sensitivities and behaviour”.Reeves also claimed that the migrants accommodated on the barge would have been in the UK for “some time staying at hotels, so they will have an understanding of UK culture and expectations”.The Home Office said the accommodation will be “basic” with healthcare provision, catering facilities and 24/7 security. The vessel, chartered from Bibby Marine, a company that specialises in accommodation and transportation for offshore workers, will cost around £50 a day per migrant once berthed in Portland, around a third the price of hotels.Rishi Sunak previously said the barge would save taxpayers’ money, because the Government is currently spending so much housing asylum seekers in hotels.
Red Chinese Diplomat in Canada Threatens Tory MP’s Relatives in China — Trudeau Does Nothing
Conservative MP Michael Chong says feds did not brief him on alleged threats to his family in China China sanctioned Chong in 2021, barring him from entering the county and prohibiting Chinese citizens from conducting business with him Author of the article: The Canadian Press Published May 01, 2023 • Last updated 1 day ago • 1 minute read 102 Comments 
FILE: Conservative foreign-affairs critic Michael Chong rises during Question Period in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Monday, Feb. 13, 2023. Photo by THE CANADIAN PRESS/ Patrick Doyle
Conservative member of Parliament Michael Chong says Ottawa should have informed him about potential threats to his family made by China’s government.
Chong released a statement after the Globe and Mail reported, citing a top-secret document and an anonymous national security source, that China’s intelligence service sought to target the MP and his family. The former cabinet minister currently serves as the Tories’ foreign-affairs critic and routinely criticizes the regime in Beijing for its human-rights record and its alleged attempts to meddle in Canada’s affairs. Chong says in a statement today that like other Canadians, he has family overseas — and any attempts to threaten them in an attempt to intimidate or coerce people in Canada constitutes a national threat. Chong says the Canadian Security Intelligence Service never briefed him about any threats made against him or his family, adding he believes that is because Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s office did not authorize such a warning.
[ Sources told the Globe that the MP is Conservative Michael Chong and that the diplomat in Canada handling the file, Zhao Wei, is still accredited to work in this country.] (National Post, May 2, 2023)
Trudeau’s office and the security agency did not immediately respond to requests for comment and The Canadian Press has not independently verified the allegations published in the Globe and Mail. China sanctioned Chong in 2021, barring him from entering the county and prohibiting Chinese citizens from conducting business with him. — This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 1, 2
CRT is part of a dangerous and harmful Marxist agenda intended to destroy the foundation of our nation which is built on Judeo-Christian principles. We must protect our children so that they too will embrace our rich inheritance. Learn more about our guest and share the Empower Hour invite HERE.
The Major Battle is in our Schools and Universities
The biggest battle regarding CRT is on the frontline in our schools. Christopher Rufo wrote the following Parent Guidebook on how to fight Critical Race Theory in the schools. Read HERE.
Example of CRT propaganda in Ontario: The Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario (ETFO) has unveiled white privilege lesson plans for students.
Visit Action4Canada’s Critical Race Theory page for more resources and information about CRT HERE. https://www.youtube.com/embed/cfmpnGV0IGc
Christopher Rufo is an amazing individual on the front line of the Anti-CRT movement bringing awareness and solutions. This video-essay explores the intellectual history of Critical Race Theory, how it’s devouring America’s public institutions, and what you can do to fight back. Since the video was created, seven States have banned CRT, and sixteen more States have bans in progress.
Rufo says, “In simple terms, critical race theory reformulates the old Marxist dichotomy of oppressor and oppressed, replacing the class categories of bourgeoisie and proletariat with the identity categories of White and Black. But the basic conclusion is the same: in order to liberate man, society must be fundamentally transformed through moral, economic, and political revolution”.
Key terms: Whiteness, white privilege, white fragility, oppressor/oppressed, intersectionality, systemic racism, spirit murder, equity, antiracism, collective guilt, affinity spaces.
Protecting Faith, Family and Freedom View Email in Browser  |
| D Critical Race Theory (CRT) is an existential threat to our freedom and democracy as its ultimate goal is to eliminate the white race. CRT is being pushed in academia and throughout society and is a sinister agenda intended to twist and distort facts and reality in order to divide and conquer. CRT was created by racists who claim to be anti-racists fighting a noble cause against racism. They purport to support freedom and equality while at the same time make accusations that Canada is a nation founded on white supremacy and oppression, and that these forces are still at the root of our society today and need to be plucked out. White, Christian males are, in their opinion, the most detestable of all. Is it of any consequence that the racist bigots pushing this agenda, happen to be predominantly white? Here are some questions to consider: What is Justin Trudeau and the global cabal up to? Is mass immigration a part of the plan to destroy the west? Will they succeed in convincing Canadians that we need to be eternally repentant for developing a nation in which others have been able to richly enjoy the benefits? they succeed in demonizing our forefathers or will Canadians realize we should be forever grateful for our rich inheritance? Are we going to succumb to this attack and willingly step aside and allow our country to be taken over by people who have not invested in it, based on the insidious lie of white privilege? Those who built this country came here risking all, often with nothing but the shirts on their backs. The Natives had not developed a commonwealth. In fact there were many tribes that were infighting and it is reported that they continue to do so to this day. This country was built by hardworking Europeans who sacrificially gave so much for us and we should be damned if a corrupt global cabal are going to waltz in and allow foreign entities to take it over. Canadians are, and have been, exceedingly generous in providing funding to the Natives and to anyone coming to Canada seeking refuge from totalitarian regimes. Here are some other questions to ponder: Are the UN and globalist cabal demanding that Islamists, who invaded many Christian nations by murdering, raping and pillaging prior to the Crusades, apologize and pay retribution for what they did? Europeans were civil and signed treaties with the natives and were not brutal invaders taking Canada by storm. So why are Canadians expected to continue to sacrifice their hard earned dollars to indefinitely fund the Natives Isn’t it time that ALL Canadians be treated equally and do their part? Canadians need to realize that our freedom came at a cost and we therefore have a duty to vigilantly defend it. As Ronald Reagan so accurately said: “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.” The following indepth report provides evidence into just one faction of immigration wherein the government is using CRT to silence Canadians. A minority of the population, committing the majority of the crime. But don’t acknowledge these facts, or you will be called a racist. Do not allow the CRT propaganda to cause you to put down your weapons (values, principles and patriotism) and shame you into walking away from defending this great nation.  |
When: Wednesday, April 26th, 2023 4:30pm PST/7:30pm EST Register in Advance. The zoom doors open at 4:30pm PST and the Empower Hour begins at 5pm PST/8pm EST.
On the next Empower Hour, professor David Millard Haskell joins Tanya to discuss the damage Critical Race Theory and “Anti-Racism Education” is doing in our public education system. CRT is an ideology rooted in Marxist notions and teaches that whites are perpetual oppressors and people of colour are perpetual victims. “Anti-racism Education” takes the ideas of CRT and packages them into classroom curriculum and diversity training instruction.
CRT is part of a dangerous and harmful Marxist agenda intended to destroy the foundation of our nation which is built on Judeo-Christian principles. We must protect our children so that they too will embrace our rich inheritance. Learn more about our guest and share the Empower Hour invite HERE.
The Major Battle is in our Schools and Universities
The biggest battle regarding CRT is on the frontline in our schools. Christopher Rufo wrote the following Parent Guidebook on how to fight Critical Race Theory in the schools. Read HERE.
Example of CRT propaganda in Ontario: The Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario (ETFO) has unveiled white privilege lesson plans for students.
Visit Action4Canada’s Critical Race Theory page for more resources and information about CRT HERE.
Christopher Rufo is an amazing individual on the front line of the Anti-CRT movement bringing awareness and solutions. This video-essay explores the intellectual history of Critical Race Theory, how it’s devouring America’s public institutions, and what you can do to fight back. Since the video was created, seven States have banned CRT, and sixteen more States have bans in progress.
Rufo says, “In simple terms, critical race theory reformulates the old Marxist dichotomy of oppressor and oppressed, replacing the class categories of bourgeoisie and proletariat with the identity categories of White and Black. But the basic conclusion is the same: in order to liberate man, society must be fundamentally transformed through moral, economic, and political revolution”.
Key terms: Whiteness, white privilege, white fragility, oppressor/oppressed, intersectionality, systemic racism, spirit murder, equity, antiracism, collective guilt, affinity spaces.
Talk Truth: Without Apology
Corri and Allan Hunsperger from Talk Truth engage in conversation with Tanya Gaw, founder of Action4Canada, about the underlying agenda of Critical Race Theory and the threat it poses to the security and sovereignty of our nation.
Maxime Bernier will STOP Mass Migration in Canada. A powerful discussion of mass immigration, the Truckers’ Freedom Convoy and the Rouleau whitewashing of Trudeau’s invocation of the Emergencies Act.
Chrystia Freeland’s Anti-White & Anti-White Male Budget
Chrystia Freeland’s budget is woke by stealth
[The Liberals and, to a lesser extent, the Conservatives are committed to the replacement and displacement of the European founding/settler people of Canada via mass immigration — the Liberals are now aiming for 500,000 immigrants a year, over 85% from the Third World. Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland’s recent budget escalates the anti-White campaign. Her budget includes many measures to dispossess Whites, using our money to actively discriminate against Whites, especially White males. — Paul Fromm]
The words ‘diversity,’ ‘equity’ and ‘inclusion,’ do not appear in the budget but they are very much apart of it Author of the article: Jamie Sarkonak Published Apr 03, 2023 • Last updated Apr 03, 2023 • 5 minute read 416 Comments 
Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland speaks during a news conference before delivering the federal budget, Tuesday, March 28, 2023 in Ottawa. Photo by Adrian Wyld /The Canadian Press
Identity-based hiring for the coast guard, tens of millions for Black employees in the public service and mandatory diversity reporting at Canadian banks were some of this year’s identity-politics-infused budget measures.
Instead of diversity, marketing for this year’s budget has focused on infrastructure, jobs and the idea of “balance” — despite the whopping $493 billion in total spending, $59.5 billion in new spending, a $43 billion deficit, and $34.5 billion to be spent on interest (rising to $50.3 billion in 2027).
The words “diversity,” “equity” and “inclusion,” do not appear at all in Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland’s budget speech; feminism was mentioned, but only in the context of Canada’s record-high labour force participation for women. It was an interesting retreat for a party that regularly champions diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI).
Perhaps it’s a sign that some communications strategists in Ottawa are starting to realize that DEI doesn’t have universal appeal. DEI is unavoidable though, since identity-based spending has been enshrined in Canadian law with the Canadian Gender Budgeting Act.
Another $55 million for housing was added to the National Housing Strategy. On top of housing need, the program prioritizes projects by identity.
The federal Student Work Placement program was given $197.7 million for 2024-25. The feds noted that the program will be aimed specifically at “students with disabilities, Black and racialized students, Indigenous people, and/or women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.” This isn’t surprising — the program already discriminates by providing greater wage subsidies for students who check off the diversity box, so we’re getting more of the same.
The Canadian Coast Guard is getting $120 million over the next five years to reinforce the fleet and hire more personnel. It’s a great initiative, considering the job implications for Atlantic Canada and the assistance it will give to the defence against illegal fishing. However, hiring will have “distinct considerations for Black and racialized people” — an unnecessary consideration that undercuts merit.
A grant program for Canadian colleges was expanded with $108 million over the next three years. Another important investment, but the grant program has a DEI component which asks applicants to demonstrate how projects will affect various identity groups.
The Canadian Media Fund received $40 million over two years “to make funding more open to traditionally underrepresented voices” by supporting the creation of jobs and content for “equity-deserving” communities. The Canadian Media Fund already offers numerous programs with preferential treatment to women, disabled persons, Indigenous people, visible minorities and sexual minorities.
Similarly, $160 million was allocated to “organizations in Canada that serve women.” It looks like another boost to non-profits and charities to balance out the budget measures that the government deems to benefit primarily men.
The budget also created a new Anti-Racism, Equity and Inclusion Secretariat, which is getting $1.5 million over the next two years. The role is that of an ideological commissar, ensuring that DEI is taken into account when crafting federal policy. It appears to be similar in size and scope to two identity positions created in last year’s budget: the Special Envoy on Combatting Antisemitism and the Special Representative on Combatting Islamophobia.
What makes these positions objectionable is that representation of citizens should happen on the floor House of Commons. The people should choose who represents them in government, not the Liberal Party of Canada.
Spending on a planned Action Plan to Combat Hate, as well as continuing Canadian Heritage’s Anti-Racism Strategy, was $75 million (interestingly, less than the $85 million allocated last year). The trouble with these plans is that they tend to use very expansive definitions of “racism” and “hate” that aren’t shared by the general public.
This year, the feds are spending the anti-hate money on things like security upgrades for places of worship, which isn’t objectionable if all religions get equal treatment. However, the development of an Action Plan to Combat Hate has been troubled: the Department of Canadian Heritage was caught biasing the results of feedback surveys to favour voices that agreed with Liberal policy goals. Meanwhile, the department’s Anti-Racism Action Program (one of the “arms” of the larger Anti-Racism Strategy) has funded an anti-racism tool kit that labelled Canada’s old flag, the Red Ensign, a hate symbol. It also funded a series of consultations carried out by Laith Marouf, an anti-racism activist known for his antisemitism.
The budget has some race-specific lines as well. One initiative set aside $25 million specifically for “Black-led and Black-serving” community organizations. Another initiative set aside $45.9 million for Black federal public servants to have a dedicated mental health fund and career development program — last year, $3.7 million was set aside to make a mental health fund for Black federal public servants, so the program has increased more than 10 times in size.
Regarding government procurement, $80 million has been dedicated to “social procurement.” The Liberals are increasingly tying federal contracts to diversity; this latest batch of funding will go towards the collection of demographic data of potential contractors to assist with the project.
Finally, the budget will also expand requirements for corporations to disclose the diversity of governance boards. In 2020, amendments to the Canada Business Corporations Act from Bill C-25 took effect, requiring federally-incorporated distributing corporations to disclose the demographic composition of governing boards and senior management. The 2023 budget requires federally regulated financial institutions to make the same disclosures. Amendments will be made to the Bank Act, Insurance Companies Act, and Trust and Loan Companies Act accordingly.
Diversity disclosures are quick to come with strings attached. In 2020, Navdeep Bains (then-Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry) told tech news website BetaKit that companies that achieved greater diversity would have preferential access to government contracts and programming.
Canadians should be skeptical of the feds picking and choosing favourites based on identity, like they’ve done with this budget. It distracts from what the real goal should be: improving the quality of life for all Canadians, no matter who they are.
National Post
Chrystia Freeland’s Anti-White & Anti-White Male Budget
Chrystia Freeland’s budget is woke by stealth
[The Liberals and, to a lesser extent, the Conservatives are committed to the replacement and displacement of the European founding/settler people of Canada via mass immigration — the Liberals are now aiming for 500,000 immigrants a year, over 85% from the Third World. Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland’s recent budget escalates the anti-White campaign. Her budget includes many measures to dispossess Whites, using our money to actively discriminate against Whites, especially White males. — Paul Fromm]
The words ‘diversity,’ ‘equity’ and ‘inclusion,’ do not appear in the budget but they are very much apart of it Author of the article: Jamie Sarkonak Published Apr 03, 2023 • Last updated Apr 03, 2023 • 5 minute read 416 Comments Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland speaks during a news conference before delivering the federal budget, Tuesday, March 28, 2023 in Ottawa. Photo by Adrian Wyld /The Canadian Press
Identity-based hiring for the coast guard, tens of millions for Black employees in the public service and mandatory diversity reporting at Canadian banks were some of this year’s identity-politics-infused budget measures.
Instead of diversity, marketing for this year’s budget has focused on infrastructure, jobs and the idea of “balance” — despite the whopping $493 billion in total spending, $59.5 billion in new spending, a $43 billion deficit, and $34.5 billion to be spent on interest (rising to $50.3 billion in 2027).
The words “diversity,” “equity” and “inclusion,” do not appear at all in Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland’s budget speech; feminism was mentioned, but only in the context of Canada’s record-high labour force participation for women. It was an interesting retreat for a party that regularly champions diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI).
Perhaps it’s a sign that some communications strategists in Ottawa are starting to realize that DEI doesn’t have universal appeal. DEI is unavoidable though, since identity-based spending has been enshrined in Canadian law with the Canadian Gender Budgeting Act.
Another $55 million for housing was added to the National Housing Strategy. On top of housing need, the program prioritizes projects by identity.
The federal Student Work Placement program was given $197.7 million for 2024-25. The feds noted that the program will be aimed specifically at “students with disabilities, Black and racialized students, Indigenous people, and/or women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.” This isn’t surprising — the program already discriminates by providing greater wage subsidies for students who check off the diversity box, so we’re getting more of the same.
The Canadian Coast Guard is getting $120 million over the next five years to reinforce the fleet and hire more personnel. It’s a great initiative, considering the job implications for Atlantic Canada and the assistance it will give to the defence against illegal fishing. However, hiring will have “distinct considerations for Black and racialized people” — an unnecessary consideration that undercuts merit.
A grant program for Canadian colleges was expanded with $108 million over the next three years. Another important investment, but the grant program has a DEI component which asks applicants to demonstrate how projects will affect various identity groups.
The Canadian Media Fund received $40 million over two years “to make funding more open to traditionally underrepresented voices” by supporting the creation of jobs and content for “equity-deserving” communities. The Canadian Media Fund already offers numerous programs with preferential treatment to women, disabled persons, Indigenous people, visible minorities and sexual minorities.
Similarly, $160 million was allocated to “organizations in Canada that serve women.” It looks like another boost to non-profits and charities to balance out the budget measures that the government deems to benefit primarily men.
The budget also created a new Anti-Racism, Equity and Inclusion Secretariat, which is getting $1.5 million over the next two years. The role is that of an ideological commissar, ensuring that DEI is taken into account when crafting federal policy. It appears to be similar in size and scope to two identity positions created in last year’s budget: the Special Envoy on Combatting Antisemitism and the Special Representative on Combatting Islamophobia.
What makes these positions objectionable is that representation of citizens should happen on the floor House of Commons. The people should choose who represents them in government, not the Liberal Party of Canada.
Spending on a planned Action Plan to Combat Hate, as well as continuing Canadian Heritage’s Anti-Racism Strategy, was $75 million (interestingly, less than the $85 million allocated last year). The trouble with these plans is that they tend to use very expansive definitions of “racism” and “hate” that aren’t shared by the general public.
This year, the feds are spending the anti-hate money on things like security upgrades for places of worship, which isn’t objectionable if all religions get equal treatment. However, the development of an Action Plan to Combat Hate has been troubled: the Department of Canadian Heritage was caught biasing the results of feedback surveys to favour voices that agreed with Liberal policy goals. Meanwhile, the department’s Anti-Racism Action Program (one of the “arms” of the larger Anti-Racism Strategy) has funded an anti-racism tool kit that labelled Canada’s old flag, the Red Ensign, a hate symbol. It also funded a series of consultations carried out by Laith Marouf, an anti-racism activist known for his antisemitism.
The budget has some race-specific lines as well. One initiative set aside $25 million specifically for “Black-led and Black-serving” community organizations. Another initiative set aside $45.9 million for Black federal public servants to have a dedicated mental health fund and career development program — last year, $3.7 million was set aside to make a mental health fund for Black federal public servants, so the program has increased more than 10 times in size.
Regarding government procurement, $80 million has been dedicated to “social procurement.” The Liberals are increasingly tying federal contracts to diversity; this latest batch of funding will go towards the collection of demographic data of potential contractors to assist with the project.
Finally, the budget will also expand requirements for corporations to disclose the diversity of governance boards. In 2020, amendments to the Canada Business Corporations Act from Bill C-25 took effect, requiring federally-incorporated distributing corporations to disclose the demographic composition of governing boards and senior management. The 2023 budget requires federally regulated financial institutions to make the same disclosures. Amendments will be made to the Bank Act, Insurance Companies Act, and Trust and Loan Companies Act accordingly.
Diversity disclosures are quick to come with strings attached. In 2020, Navdeep Bains (then-Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry) told tech news website BetaKit that companies that achieved greater diversity would have preferential access to government contracts and programming.
Canadians should be skeptical of the feds picking and choosing favourites based on identity, like they’ve done with this budget. It distracts from what the real goal should be: improving the quality of life for all Canadians, no matter who they are.
National Post
Trudeau Foundation president, board resign, citing ‘politicization’ of China-linked donation
Social Sharing
Charity’s leadership cites controversy over Beijing-linked donor to explain the move
Richard Raycraft · CBC News · Posted: Apr 11, 2023 6:51 AM PDT | Last Updated: 5 hours ago
The Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation’s president and board of directors have resigned en masse, citing the charity’s entanglement in the ongoing foreign interference controversy.
In a statement, the foundation said that a $200,000 donation in 2016 from a businessman linked to the Chinese government “has put a great deal of pressure on the foundation’s management and volunteer board of directors, as well as on our staff and our community.”
The charity announced last month that it would return the donation. The Conservatives criticized the government over the matter, saying the donation compromised a government report on the integrity of the 2021 federal election.
“The circumstances created by the politicization of the foundation have made it impossible to continue with the status quo, and the volunteer board of directors has resigned, as has the president and CEO,” the statement said.
WATCH | Trudeau reacts to CEO, board resignations at Trudeau Foundation
Trudeau reacts to CEO, board resignations at Trudeau Foundation
7 hours agoDuration 0:55Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says the foundation will continue to make a positive impact on academic institutions across the country.
The foundation is independent and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has no involvement with it.
“The Trudeau Foundation is a foundation with which I have absolutely no intersection,” Trudeau told a news conference Tuesday.
“It is a shame to see the level of toxicity and political polarization that is going on in our country these days, but I am certain that the Trudeau Foundation will be able to continue to ensure that research into the social studies and humanities at the highest levels across Canadian academic institutions continues for many years to come.”
The charity, established in 2001 to honour former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, funds scholarships, mentorships and fellowships.
Last month, Prime Minister Trudeau appointed former governor general David Johnston as a special rapporteur to investigate foreign interference in Canadian elections and institutions, including alleged meddling by the Chinese government.
The Conservatives have questioned Johnston’s impartiality, in part by pointing to Johnston’s former role as a member of the Trudeau Foundation. Foundation members are responsible for appointing the board of directors.
Johnston resigned from the foundation following his appointment as special rapporteur. Trudeau has defended the choice, citing Johnston’s long career in public service.
The statement said three directors will remain on an interim basis to continue the charity’s work while a new board is appointed. The foundation’s website currently lists six members of the board of directors.
Its president and CEO, Pascale Fournier, had been in the position for almost five years.
Poilievre calls for investigation
Reacting to news of the resignations Tuesday morning, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre called for an investigation into the charity.
“We need to investigate the Beijing-funded Trudeau Foundation,” Poilievre tweeted.
“We need to know who got rich, who got paid and who got privilege and power from Justin Trudeau as a result of funding to the Trudeau Foundation.”https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-1
Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet said the resignations make the 2016 donation look more suspicious. He called on Johnston to step down as special rapporteur and for the government to call a public inquiry into foreign interference.
“Nothing else will do,” Blanchet said in a French statement.
NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh said he won’t comment on the Trudeau Foundation specifically. He repeated his calls for a public inquiry.
WATCH | Singh repeats call for public inquiry after Trudeau Foundation president, board resign
Singh repeats call for public inquiry after Trudeau Foundation president, board resign
6 hours agoDuration 0:57During a press conference at St. Clair College in Windsor, Ont., NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh is asked about the resignation of the president and board of directors of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation. A statement from the foundation said ‘the circumstances created by the politicization of the foundation have made it impossible to continue with the status quo.’
“What we’ve seen from both the Liberals and the Conservatives, they’re more interested in scoring political points, pointing fingers at each other,” Singh told a news conference.
“When it comes to something as serious as our democracy, the goal shouldn’t be to score points … We’ve been saying we need a public inquiry to get to the truth, to give Canadians confidence.”
Canadian Politicians Sign Letter to CCP Official Pledging to Promote Beijing’s Image in Fighting COVID-19: Report
Conservative Sen. Victor Oh in a file photo. (Becky Zhou/The Epoch Times)
By Andrew ChenApril 8, 2023Updated: April 9, 2023 biggersmallerPrint 0:006:49
Senator Victor Oh and former Ontario cabinet minister Michael Chan were signatories among those who signed a 2020 letter from an Ontario-based Chinese-Canadian business association to a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) official saying the association has been promoting China’s image in fighting COVID-19 and pledges continuing support of the “great motherland.”
Oh signed as the association’s honorary president as well as a Canadian senator and “chair” of the Canada-China Legislative Association (CACN). Oh’s biography on the Senate of Canada website indicates he is the “Vice-Chair” of CACN, though his name currently is not on the members page of the association.
Chan, for his part, signed as CACN’s honorary president as well as a former minister of international trade of Ontario and an honorary citizen of Jiangsu Province. https://fb9aa48ced4f4ea33ff145de51fa2d12.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-40/html/container.html
The correspondence was in response to a letter issued by the CCP official to Jiang Rui, president of Richmond Hill-based Jiangsu Commerce Council of Canada (JCCC), as reported in April 2020 by the Chinese-language media ccmedia.news, and first reported in English by the Found in Translation newsletter on Substack. The ccmedia.news website includes copies of the two letters.
The March 27, 2020, letter by the CCP official, Lou Qinjian, former secretary of the Jiangsu provincial committee, bears the letterhead of the Jiangsu Provincial Committee of the CCP. It is addressed directly to Jiang as well as all overseas Chinese from Jiangsu in Canada. It is co-signed by another CCP official, Wu Zhenglong, then-governor of Jiangsu. Jiangsu is a province on China’s east coast, north of Shanghai.
Neither Oh nor Chan responded to requests for comment from The Epoch Times.
‘Telling China’s Story Well’
In what Jiang described as a “letter from home,” CCP official Lou’s letter expressed care and concern toward the overseas Chinese in Canada amid the COVID-19 pandemic and said they will “resolutely implement [Chinese] President Xi Jinping’s instructions and requirements, and make the utmost effort to provide help and support for the health and safety of all overseas compatriots.”
Meanwhile, the letter also urged the JCCC to take advantage of its connections as a Chinese diaspora association to promote to Canadians a positive image of Beijing’s pandemic response.
“[We] hope that you will make use of overseas Chinese as a bridge to convey confidence, actively tell well the story of the fight against the pandemic at home [in China], promote the image of the motherland as a responsible major country, and demonstrate the good citizenship of overseas Jiangsu people,” the letter said.
“Telling China’s story well” is a phrase introduced by Chinese leader Xi in 2013, encapsulating his approach of messaging on the world stage to promote the image of the communist regime.
Response Letter
The ccmedia.news article included images of the three pages of Jiang’s response letter, dated April 10, 2020, addressed only to Lou and bearing Jiang’s signature on the second page and the signatures of Oh, Chan, and over a dozen other senior JCCC members on the third page.
In the response letter, Jiang expressed gratitude for the “special letter from home,” saying that following that lead, other Jiangsu government departments have also reached out to show their care and concern, including the Jiangsu Provincial United Front Work Department (UFWD). The UFWD functions as the CCP’s “primary foreign interference tool” working to co-opt international politicians and facilitate espionage, among other activities that endanger national security, says a 2020 report by Public Safety Canada citing research by think tanks.
Jiang also said his group has been committed to the cause of promoting China’s image in Canada since early in the pandemic.
“Since the early days of China’s fight against the pandemic, we’ve made use of the special resources and channels of many JCCC members to tell the story of China’s fight against the pandemic to the Canadian government and people,” Jiang wrote.
“Through extensive and in-depth publicity, China’s demeanour [image] as a responsible, courageous, competent, and cooperative great power … is receiving more and more understanding, support, and appreciation from the Canadian government, people, and overseas Chinese!”
The ccmedia.news article included photos of Oh and Chan signing the letter.
Oh, a Conservative senator representing Ontario, was appointed to the Senate in 2013.
Chan, who was a cabinet member in the previous Liberal government in Ontario, is now deputy mayor of Markham, Ont., a city that is part of the Greater Toronto Area. At the time of the signing of the letter, he was not a public office holder.
The Ontario provincial government was reportedly warned by CSIS in 2010 about its fear that Chan was under the influence of China, according to the Globe and Mail. Chan has said he is taking legal action against the Globe for its reporting.
As reported previously by The Epoch Times, Chan has spoken against anti-Beijing protests in Hong Kong, and supported the regime’s national security law for the region. Canada and other democratic countries have condemned the new law as suppressing freedoms.
Affiliation
The JCCC, established in 2002, says its goal is to promote trade and business collaboration between Ontario and Jiangsu. It has over 1,000 members, including elites in the business, government, and academic communities, according to its website.
Jiang Rui, who began serving as JCCC president in 2018, has also held positions in organizations associated with the CCP, according to reports in local Jiangsu media and state media in China.
Apart from being JCCC president, Jiang is also an overseas representative of the provincial-level Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, a political advisory body in the People’s Republic of China, and also a key body of the CCP’s UFWD, according to ourjiangsu.com, a Chinese website directly owned by the Jiangsu provincial branch of the UFWD.
The Epoch Times reached out to Jiang for comment via the JCCC but didn’t hear back.
According to a January 2021 JCCC report, Jiang was also elected vice-president of the Jiangsu branch of the China Council for the Promotion of Peaceful National Reunification (CCPPNR), a China-based organization directly supervised by officials in the Politburo, the CCP’s highest decision-making body.
The report included photos taken at a conference on the establishment of the Jiangsu CCPPNR, held on Jan. 9, 2020, in Nanjing City, Jiangsu Province. A number of senior CCP officials, including the vice governor of the province, members of the Jiangsu Provincial Committee of the CCP, and the head of the UFWD, attended the conference, according to an article posted on the Jiangsu provincial government website.
The CCPPNR has branches in many countries, including two in Canada and at least 20 in the United States. In October 2020, the U.S. State Department designated a CCPPNR branch, the Washington, D.C.-based National Association for China’s Peaceful Unification, as a foreign mission of the Chinese regime, describing it as a front organization of the UFWD.
Open in app or online Justin Trudeau, Jagmeet Singh And Sikh Nationalism: The Untold Story Canadians are being kept in the dark regarding the degree to which Sikh Nationalism has permeated our political environment. Brad Salzberg Apr 5 Open in app or online Justin Trudeau, Jagmeet Singh And Sikh Nationalism: The Untold Story Canadians are being kept in the dark regarding the degree to which Sikh Nationalism has permeated our political environment. Brad Salzberg Apr 5    Save ▷ Listen  Pictured, Canadian prime minister, with one of his 3rd world priority communities. Share “The head of an Indo-Canadian organization in British Columbia has complained to local law enforcement about receiving death threats from Khalistani radicals after he organised a reception last month in honour of India’s High Commissioner to Ottawa.” Due to media obfuscation, Canadians are being kept in the dark regarding the degree to which Sikh Nationalism has permeated our political environment. Cultural Action Party liken it to a secret pact. As buried by CBC and corporate media, PM Justin Trudeau and political partner Jagmeet Singh are quietly backing Khalistani state independence in India. New Democratic Party leader Singh is so deep in the mud that the government of India has banned his turbaned-self from entering their country. Lucky for him that Canadian media has successfully covered up the radical nature of the NDP leader, whose family emigrated from India a generation ago. To place the situation in context, one must understand the nature of contemporary Canadian politics. The first lesson to learn is that the phenomenon is fervently non-Canadian. In our era of globalism, the needs of Canadian-born citizens take a back seat to the desires of globalist forces such as Sikhism, China and the nation of Islam. “What did the promptness of NDP leader Jagmeet Singh, MP Sonia Sidhu, and others in tweeting about the Punjab situation after Amritpal Singh’s incident and ban on Internet services, say? It was done at the behest of radical votebanks,” says a Brampton Sikh entrepreneur, requesting anonymity.” Picking up on the vibe, fellow Canadian patriots? In basic terms, both Trudeau and Singh are leveraging support of Khalistan independence to win the Sikh-Canadian vote. We stand aghast as irony drips from the brow of astute Canadians: Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh are fully dedicated to independent Khalistan nationhood. Given the zealotry involved– not to mention the militancy– it is obvious that nothing less than a Sikh-dominated social and political environment is the intended outcome. As in– no immigration, no multiculturalism, as well as monolithic religious identity. In other words, an independent state devoid of every fundamental Trudeau and Singh are forcing down the throats of Canadians.. Media say nothing. Not a drop of the inherent irony flows from the pens of our country’s leading journalists. There you have it– the press in Canada are: Pro-communist China, pro-Sikh nationalism, pro-Islam. The only thing they are not is pro-Canada. In 2023, this is the condition of PM Trudeau’s “no core identity” society. Trudeau is using Khalistani independence to win the support of Sikh communities from coast-to-coast. According to Statistics Canada, Sikhism represents 1.4% of the Canadian population— in contradistinction to accumulated political power: Premier of Yukon, Ranj Pallai. Leader of NDP, Jagmeet Singh. Liberal Cabinet Members– Harjit Sajjan, Kamal Khera, . Liberal MPs: Anju Dhillon, Bardish Chagger, George Chahal, Iqwinder Gaheer, Mahinder Sindu, Randeep Sarai, Ruby Sahota, Sonia Sidhu, Sukh Dahliwal, Parm Bains. Mayor of Calgary, Jhoti Gondek. Mayor of Edmonton, Amarjeet Singh. Again, just 1.4% of our population is Sikh. Talk about GIANT over-representation in government. Media speak not a word about this reality. Put it all together in a blender, shake and stir, and what is the final outcome? Sikh political power in Canada, including bi-lateral Liberal-NDP federal party support for an independent Sikh nation to be located halfway around the world. Sensible Canadians know how to summarize the situation: this is Canadian politics in 2023. Let us think back to the founding of the international state of “Canadastan.” CAP attribute this gem to none other than ex-Liberal PM, Pierre Trudeau. Communist in political orientation, this individual began our transition to a globalist nation-state. Or better put, a “non-state,” as communist philosophy advances. Beginning with an opening of our national doors to the communist government of China, we note an affinity by which current PM Justin Trudeau runs our country. In 2015, Trudeau Jr. began to integrate Islam and Sikhism into the fabric of our nation. Is it overly simplistic to state that more than any force in Canadian history, it is the Trudeau family who destroyed Canadian nationalism? Is it not this communist-admiring Quebecois duo who transformed society into a condition no citizen ever asked for, or approved of? “When events such as the arrest of Amritpal Singh happen, Khalistan supporters bombard the offices of mayors, MPs, MPPs and Ministers with messages, forcing them to issue hasty statements or tweet,” says an Indo-Canadian restaurant owner in Toronto.” Which MPs, Mayors and Ministers? The ones listed above, in a political effort completely devoid of Canadian content? Does Canada now exist for the benefit of the Punjab? Sadly, this is the case. Jagmeet Singh, golden boy of the Canadian press, is one privileged individual. While he prances around in Vaisakhi parades pushing Khalistan independence, CBC and corporate media have not a negative word to say about the man. Working his buns off for Khalistan while branding Canadians racist is par for the course. “Not a worry, Mr. Singh. Justin Trudeau is paying our salaries, and we tow the globalist line accordingly.” “Politicians must stop playing identity politics. A criminal is a criminal — not a Sikh or a Hindu or a Muslim. By supporting these elements, ministers and MPs are playing dangerous games and harming Canada which needs India more than ever now.” Forget about it, buddy-boy. Woke liberalism specializes in carving up communities into distinct silos, only to get them fighting each other within general society. See Marx, Karl for details. What this person is describing is not some fringe element of Justin Trudeau’s post-modern society. It is contemporary Canada, and thanks to the family Trudeau and traitorous politicians like Jagmeet Singh, it is here to stay. Save ▷ Listen Pictured, Canadian prime minister, with one of his 3rd world priority communities.Share“The head of an Indo-Canadian organization in British Columbia has complained to local law enforcement about receiving death threats from Khalistani radicals after he organised a reception last month in honour of India’s High Commissioner to Ottawa.”Due to media obfuscation, Canadians are being kept in the dark regarding the degree to which Sikh Nationalism has permeated our political environment.Cultural Action Party liken it to a secret pact. As buried by CBC and corporate media, PM Justin Trudeau and political partner Jagmeet Singh are quietly backing Khalistani state independence in India.New Democratic Party leader Singh is so deep in the mud that the government of India has banned his turbaned-self from entering their country. Lucky for him that Canadian media has successfully covered up the radical nature of the NDP leader, whose family emigrated from India a generation ago.To place the situation in context, one must understand the nature of contemporary Canadian politics. The first lesson to learn is that the phenomenon is fervently non-Canadian. In our era of globalism, the needs of Canadian-born citizens take a back seat to the desires of globalist forces such as Sikhism, China and the nation of Islam.“What did the promptness of NDP leader Jagmeet Singh, MP Sonia Sidhu, and others in tweeting about the Punjab situation after Amritpal Singh’s incident and ban on Internet services, say? It was done at the behest of radical votebanks,” says a Brampton Sikh entrepreneur, requesting anonymity.”Picking up on the vibe, fellow Canadian patriots? In basic terms, both Trudeau and Singh are leveraging support of Khalistan independence to win the Sikh-Canadian vote. We stand aghast as irony drips from the brow of astute Canadians:Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh are fully dedicated to independent Khalistan nationhood. Given the zealotry involved– not to mention the militancy– it is obvious that nothing less than a Sikh-dominated social and political environment is the intended outcome.As in– no immigration, no multiculturalism, as well as monolithic religious identity. In other words, an independent state devoid of every fundamental Trudeau and Singh are forcing down the throats of Canadians..Media say nothing. Not a drop of the inherent irony flows from the pens of our country’s leading journalists. There you have it– the press in Canada are:Pro-communist China, pro-Sikh nationalism, pro-Islam. The only thing they are not is pro-Canada. In 2023, this is the condition of PM Trudeau’s “no core identity” society. Trudeau is using Khalistani independence to win the support of Sikh communities from coast-to-coast.According to Statistics Canada, Sikhism represents 1.4% of the Canadian population— in contradistinction to accumulated political power:Premier of Yukon, Ranj Pallai. Leader of NDP, Jagmeet Singh. Liberal Cabinet Members– Harjit Sajjan, Kamal Khera, Anita Anand.Liberal MPs: Anju Dhillon, Bardish Chagger, George Chahal, Iqwinder Gaheer, Mahinder Sindu, Randeep Sarai, Ruby Sahota, Sonia Sidhu, Sukh Dahliwal, Parm Bains.Mayor of Calgary, Jhoti Gondek. Mayor of Edmonton, Amarjeet Singh. Again, just 1.4% of our population is Sikh. Talk about GIANT over-representation in government. Media speak not a word about this reality.Put it all together in a blender, shake and stir, and what is the final outcome? Sikh political power in Canada, including bi-lateral Liberal-NDP federal party support for an independent Sikh nation to be located halfway around the world.Sensible Canadians know how to summarize the situation: this is Canadian politics in 2023.Let us think back to the founding of the international state of “Canadastan.” CAP attribute this gem to none other than ex-Liberal PM, Pierre Trudeau. Communist in political orientation, this individual began our transition to a globalist nation-state. Or better put, a “non-state,” as communist philosophy advances.Beginning with an opening of our national doors to the communist government of China, we note an affinity by which current PM Justin Trudeau runs our country. In 2015, Trudeau Jr. began to integrate Islam and Sikhism into the fabric of our nation.Is it overly simplistic to state that more than any force in Canadian history, it is the Trudeau family who destroyed Canadian nationalism? Is it not this communist-admiring Quebecois duo who transformed society into a condition no citizen ever asked for, or approved of?“When events such as the arrest of Amritpal Singh happen, Khalistan supporters bombard the offices of mayors, MPs, MPPs and Ministers with messages, forcing them to issue hasty statements or tweet,” says an Indo-Canadian restaurant owner in Toronto.”Which MPs, Mayors and Ministers? The ones listed above, in a political effort completely devoid of Canadian content? Does Canada now exist for the benefit of the Punjab?Sadly, this is the case. Jagmeet Singh, golden boy of the Canadian press, is one privileged individual. While he prances around in Vaisakhi parades pushing Khalistan independence, CBC and corporate media have not a negative word to say about the man.Working his buns off for Khalistan while branding Canadians racist is par for the course. “Not a worry, Mr. Singh. Justin Trudeau is paying our salaries, and we tow the globalist line accordingly.””Politicians must stop playing identity politics. A criminal is a criminal — not a Sikh or a Hindu or a Muslim. By supporting these elements, ministers and MPs are playing dangerous games and harming Canada which needs India more than ever now.”Forget about it, buddy-boy. Woke liberalism specializes in carving up communities into distinct silos, only to get them fighting each other within general society. See Marx, Karl for details.What this person is describing is not some fringe element of Justin Trudeau’s post-modern society. It is contemporary Canada, and thanks to the family Trudeau and traitorous politicians like Jagmeet Singh, it is here to stay. |
China Foreign Ownership and BC Resources by Kevin Hinton and Ryan McKenzie – Date not provided https://www.bcbusiness.ca/china-foreign-ownership-bc-resources Does allowing non-B.C. enterprises to buy increasing chunks of the companies producing our resource commodities result in a loss of control over how those resources are developed?
B.C.’s natural resources are being gobbled up by foreign entities at a record pace. Increasingly, those entities are controlled by governments, such as China’s, that may have motives beyond mere profits.
Former B.C. Premier Bill Bennett said in 1979 that B.C. was not for sale. He made that famous declaration in reaction to news that Canadian Pacific Investments Ltd., the Montreal-based subsidiary of the railway company, was seeking to increase its already large ownership position to a controlling interest in MacMillan Bloedel Ltd., the province’s number one forest products company.
That was too much for Bennett. At the time, CP was already a major player in the province and gaining control of MacMillan Bloedel would make it by far the biggest, with headquarters in Central Canada. Bennett vetoed the deal using the provisions of the B.C. Forest Act, which required government approval for any transfer of forest leases from one corporation to another.
“We’re clarifying government policy in declaring there is a point at which a company can be too large in a certain area,” Bennett told the legislature on June 25, 1979. “That’s the policy of this party and this government . . . that is public policy from the premier of the province of British Columbia.”
Fast forward a couple of decades and many would argue that the province is not only for sale, but large pieces have been sold – and this time with government acquiescence, if not approval. Consider the following:
• With the provincial government’s blessing, MacMillan Bloedel was bought for $US 2.45 billion in 1999 by Weyerhaueser Inc., a huge U.S. forest products company. There was nary a ripple of comment.
• In 2002, North Carolina-based Duke Energy Inc. paid $US 8 billion for control of Westcoast Energy Inc., the company that runs the natural gas pipeline system from northeast B.C. gas fields to the rest of the province, and to export markets in the U.S. There was little public comment.
• Kelowna-based Inland Natural Gas, having just picked up BC Hydro’s natural gas distribution network and the Trans Mountain pipeline system, was bought in 2005 by U.S.-based Kinder Morgan and twice renamed, first BC Gas Inc., then Terasen Gas Inc. Kinder Morgan soon spun Terasen’s natural gas assets off to Fortis Inc., a Canadian company headquartered in Newfoundland. But Kinder Morgan kept the piece it wanted: Inland’s ownership stake in Trans Mountain Pipeline, the company that ships crude oil and refined products to Vancouver from Edmonton. There was no public outcry over this either.
• In a transaction still mired in controversy, the B.C. government in 2004 completed the sale of debt-ridden B.C. Railway Co. to Canadian National Railway Co. for $1 billion. As it is now structured, CN is as much an American company as it is Canadian. There is significant and ongoing public comment on this transaction, although the controversy has less to do with foreign control than it does with politics.
Globalization has expanded the reach of “national” companies everywhere, with many now taking on the more accurate “multinational” moniker. Of course nationalist sentiment still exists – witness the American reaction to a disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the British company, BP Petroleum, that was responsible for it. But governments now seem satisfied that they can control foreign-owned private companies through regulation.
Today, the focus of the debate has shifted from concern over a private-sector change in share ownership to concern over acquisitions and investments by state-owned enterprises and sovereign wealth funds. While a private-sector move is transparent – they all want to make more money – a state-controlled enterprise may have additional agendas that are contrary to the host nation’s interests. Increasingly, these state-owned enterprises are from the People’s Republic of China.
In the last two years, Chinese state investments in Canada have included a $1.9-billion investment by PetroChina Co. Ltd. in Athabasca Oil Sands Corp., a $4.65-billion investment by Sinopec Corp. in oilsands producer Syncrude Canada Ltd., a $1.25-billion investment by China Investment Corp. in Calgary-based Penn West Petroleum Ltd. and a $679-million takeover of Vancouver-based Corriente Resources Inc. by a Chinese consortium.
In addition, it was announced in January 2011 that Sinopec Corp. is among a group of investors providing $100 million to jump-start Enbridge Inc.’s proposed $5.5-billion Northern Gateway pipeline project, designed to carry oilsands crude from Alberta to a tanker port in Kitimat and on to Asian markets.
These kinds of investments are taxing Canada’s foreign investment rules and have already sparked a review. At issue is whether or not the country needs to use different criteria in assessing the benefits of a state-owned company’s investment as opposed to a straightforward private-sector investment.
While there has been some debate on the question of ownership of Canada’s natural resources, nary a word was uttered by any of the political candidates running for office in the May 2 federal election. And very little work has been done to help explain to the general public what the issues are and why they should care.
Image: Peter Holst
John Bruk broke with the Asia Pacific Foundation,
arguing that investments from Chinese state-
controlled companies must be better regulated.
The growing number of Chinese investments
In January 2011, Pascale Massot, a doctoral student in UBC’s political science department, prepared a paper for Vancouver’s Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada looking at the growing number of investments made by state-owned Chinese enterprises. She recommended that governments provide clarity around how such investments should be treated.
“Since the summer of 2009, at least five Chinese state investments in Canada in the energy and mining sectors have totaled more than $10 billion,” wrote Massot. “Those investments were completed unhindered (most did not meet the minimum requirements for a review under the Investment Canada Act). Confirming a sustained interest in investing in Canada, the China Investment Corporation (a sovereign wealth fund) unveiled plans to open its first overseas corporate location in Toronto on January 12, 2010.”
Massot went on to call for changes to Canada’s review process to better reflect the new investment environment: “It is important for the Investment Canada Act to remain up to date in the face of the rapid evolution of state-owned investments globally. It is also particularly important to get this right, in light of the growing importance for Canada of Chinese state-owned and private investment.”
For B.C., there are three such investments that illustrate the debate. In July 2009, China Investment Corp. put $1.74 billion into Vancouver-based Teck Resources Ltd. for a 17.5 per cent equity stake. Then, in February 2011, PetroChina announced it was investing $5.4 billion in one of EnCana Corp.’s prolific shale gas properties in northeastern B.C.; rather than making an equity investment in EnCana, China elected instead to go the joint-venture route. The third investment, announced in the spring of 2011, has a private-sector consortium of Chinese companies putting up $1 billion to develop metallurgical coal from B.C.’s northeast. Although not a pure example of a state-owned enterprise, there is some state involvement, and the deal seems designed to do an end run around mining companies and lock up the coal supply for China’s steelmaking industry.
Whether or not all these investments from China are a good thing for B.C. is an open question. Is the $5.4-billion investment in EnCana’s shale gas designed to maximize returns from the sale of the gas to the highest bidder, or is it designed instead to lock up the supply of gas, at a relatively low price, and move it to China via a liquid natural gas plant in Kitimat? Only a month after announcing the Chinese investment, EnCana said it would acquire a 30 per cent interest in that LNG export terminal, now in its final planning stages.
It’s that potential for conflict of interest that has a few people worried. Jock Finlayson, executive vice-president of the Business Council of B.C., appreciates the “investment renaissance” that B.C. is now experiencing, but recommends a cautious approach.
“Canada needs to look at this,” he says. “I don’t know what the right answer is, but I do agree that the private-sector rules don’t apply to state-owned organizations, and it’s not just the Chinese. It requires an explicit look. Do we hold them to a higher test? They are going to have to do it sooner rather than later.”
John Bruk, who 27 years ago co-founded and headed the Asia Pacific Foundation, pulls no punches on this topic. He sees a need for some concerted action before too many horses have fled the barn. Bruk has prepared a comprehensive analysis of the track record of the foundation; he believes the government-funded organization needs to be re-energized in part because of China’s growing economic influence, and believes it needs to do much more to help Canada address an unsustainable trade deficit with China. (Disclosure: I provided editing services for Bruk on this paper.)
“Is trading our ownership and control of core assets for more consumer goods, resulting in unsustainable trade deficits, good for Canada?” Bruk asks in his report. “Are we jeopardizing prosperity for our children and grandchildren while putting at risk our economic independence? In my view, this is exactly what is happening.”
Bruk describes the EnCana investment as a good case in point: “It is just the latest in a series of investments by China that should spark a serious debate in this country about Canada’s willingness to accept what appears to be an asset purchase by an agency of a foreign government. It is perhaps the first transaction in which a sale of a natural resources asset is dressed up in the sheep’s clothing of a joint venture with a view to neutralize any opposition.”
Bruk has similar problems with the Teck investment, questioning why it was necessary to seek Chinese investment for a Canadian mining company (one of the few that hasn’t been taken over outright) when there is plenty of investment capital within our borders.
“Considering that Teck produces base metals and coal, commodities in great demand by China, was Canada in such a desperate state that Teck had to accept money from the China Investment Company to find the needed bridge financing? A number of our public employees’ pension funds had plenty of capital for such a promising investment. How promising? CIC bought 101.3 million Teck class B shares at $17.21; in less than two years, those shares increased to $53, a return of over 200 per cent. Instead, our public pension fund managers are going abroad seeking investments as if there were no opportunities in Canada. Is it any wonder foreigners would like to acquire more of our resource assets?”
Bruk is at odds on this topic with his old employer, the Asia Pacific Foundation. Kenny Zhang is a senior research analyst with the foundation and sees no cause for concern here.
“It doesn’t matter where [the investment] comes from – it always has positive and negative effects. We should treat [state-owned investors] equally as with any investment. They have to follow Canadian law. The state-owned company wants the high return for the investment, and also has a strategic need for resources. We must clear up the message. We are an open economy. The Chinese are watching this very closely.”
Foundation officials are sensitive to this topic, and worry about the public perception out there around investments from China. After the Harper government’s very high-profile rejection last fall of a bid by Australia-based BHP Billiton to take over Saskatchewan-based Potash Corp., the foundation commissioned Pascale Massot’s review of state-owned enterprises and their interest in Canada. Prime Minister Harper rejected the takeover bid on “national security” concerns, but only after the governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba all argued strongly that the takeover was not in the national interest. (B.C. took no position on this transaction.) One of Massot’s findings was that politics played a large role in Harper’s decision, and that that needs to change.
[pagebreak]
In April, the foundation released the results of a survey it had commissioned to assess Canadians’ comfort level with investment from a number of countries, including China. The results were unsettling for those who see Chinese investment in Canada’s resource sector as a good thing. It showed that more Canadians see China as a threat (57 per cent) than an opportunity (43 per cent), and that such sentiment is growing. More than 75 per cent said they were opposed to a Chinese state-owned company taking a majority position in a Canadian company.
“There is a yawning discrepancy between the sentiments that Canadians have for Asian countries and the role that they see Asia playing in Canada’s economic future,” said Yuen Pau Woo, the foundation’s president and CEO, in a press release accompanying the poll results. He went on to castigate federal politicians, in the middle of campaigning, for not paying enough attention to the issue: “In an election campaign that has largely been devoid of discussion on international issues, the poll findings suggest an urgent need for political leadership on a Canadian response to the shift in global power towards Asia. It is not enough to give lip service to the notion that Canada is an Asia Pacific nation. There is an urgent need for improved awareness, greater activity and better policy. We need a national conversation on Asia to better equip Canadians to respond to the rise of Asia, and to make Canada more fully a part of the Asia Pacific region.”
Whether people agree with the APF’s strong promotion of a green-light policy for state-owned investments or follow the more cautionary approach recommended by the Business Council of B.C., there is little help coming from federal politicians. They are largely silent on the issue.
Former federal industry minister Tony Clement was asked in April to comment on the Conservative government’s current thinking on how to treat investments from state-owned enterprises. The government in fact created a Competition Policy Review Panel in 2007 and published its recommendations in 2008. None of the recommendations have been implemented, including one calling for better communication on how the government makes decisions about these kinds of investments. Clement declined the interview request; he too was busy campaigning for re-election.
B.C.’s newly appointed energy minister, Rich Coleman, on the other hand, doesn’t hesitate to offer his opinion on Chinese state-owned investment in the energy sector. Asked if he has any concerns, Coleman responds, “I don’t think so. These companies, like China National Oil Corp., have established partnerships with industrial players here and elsewhere. They will advance development of our resources, and they’ll follow our rules and environmental regulations. We haven’t said to one company you’re not welcome, and another is.”
Coleman sees no conflict in a Chinese state-owned enterprise holding a large piece of a B.C. shale gas field: “Well, they would make the investment at the best price they could so they could get access to the gas at the best price they can. I don’t think state-owned corporations versus private ones have any other goal than that.” Coleman points out that the price paid for natural gas in China is three times higher than the North American price and that the province’s royalty take would increase with sales to China.
James Brander, Asia-Pacific Professor of International Business in UBC’s Faculty of Commerce, shares Coleman’s view of the investments in general and the EnCana deal in particular. But he also has some cautionary notes.
“Of course there is a potential conflict. But strictly speaking, the terms on which they enter this agreement, under Canadian law, would require them to operate in the interests of the shareholders,” he says. “It’s not legal in Canada for a foreign government to, either directly or by proxy, own an asset and use it for the explicit benefit of the foreign country at the expense of the shareholders.
“But it’s not as though we have investment police looking into every single investment,” he continues. “They could exercise some pressure. But at this level I wouldn’t be concerned. We are talking about [with EnCana] a 50 per cent ownership. I’d be more concerned about majority ownership. It is important to keep our eye on that conflict of interest. We do have laws to prevent it, but we need to keep an eye on it.”
While John Bruk disagrees with the APF’s current position on Chinese state-owned investors, he agrees there’s a need for a national discussion on the topic. And he believes there’s some urgency for it. Canada’s trade deficit with China skyrocketed from $1.1 billion in 1995 to $31.2 billion in 2010, making it our largest by far. During those 16 years, exports to China have grown by a factor of less than four while China’s exports to Canada have grown by a factor of almost 10. This trend, says Bruk, is “a recipe for impoverishment of our country.”
“Is it any surprise that President Hu expressed China’s desire to double its bilateral trade with Canada by 2015?” Bruk asks. “Assuming that both exports and imports double, which is optimistic from a Canadian point of view, considering the above ratios, our trade deficit would grow from $31.2 billion last year to $62.4 billion by 2015 – a boon for China, not for Canada.”
Over the next decade, B.C. is pinning its hopes on a resurgence of interest from Asian nations looking for commodities – whether it’s coal for steel, natural gas and oil or forest products. But the province faces the same dilemma it has faced for most of its existence: Does allowing non-B.C. enterprises to buy increasing chunks of the companies producing our resource commodities result in a loss of control over how those resources are developed?
Premier Bennett, nearly 35 years ago, decided that allowing out-of-province control of our economic engine was too great a risk to take – and back then, the out-of-province player in question was Canadian and privately owned. With state-owned enterprises now threatening to lock up those resources with perhaps a different agenda in mind, is there enough consideration being given by governments to all the ramifications? The simple answer, it would appear, is no.
