The News Rundown

Two high-level memos allege Beijing covertly funded Canadian election candidates

Justin Trudeau said he was never briefed on the issue, and his security adviser has dismissed it out of hand, but two high-level national security reports before and after the 2019 election suggest that Trudeau's government was warned that Chinese government officials were funnelling money to Canadian political candidates.
The two intelligence reports, from 2019 and 2022, raise questions about what senior federal officials knew about the alleged funding by a foreign interference network and how seriously the Trudeau government took the warnings.
One is a “Special Report” prepared by the Privy Council Office for the Trudeau government and was date-stamped January 2022. The memo was also finalized, suggesting it was intended to be read by Trudeau and his senior aides.
It asserted that Chinese officials in Toronto had disbursed money into a covert network tasked to interfere in Canada’s 2019 election. It says: “A large clandestine transfer of funds earmarked for the federal election from the PRC Consulate in Toronto was transferred to an elected provincial government official via a staff member of a 2019 federal candidate.”
This document was derived from 100 Canadian Security Intelligence Service reports and was produced by the Intelligence Assessment Secretariat. The IAS is a division of the PCO that regularly provides national security alerts for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his cabinet.
An anonymous national security official explaining this report to the media said the finalized memo was about intelligence gleaned from an ongoing, high-level probe in the Greater Toronto Area launched in January 2019.
The 2019 report came from Canada’s National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, which reviews national security matters and promotes “government-wide accountability.” While the document did not examine specific interference activities directed at the 2019 federal election, it offered several examples of alleged Chinese election interference from 2015 to 2018 that involved the targeting and funding of candidates.
It says: “A [People’s Republic of China] Embassy interlocutor founded a group of community leaders called the ‘tea party’ to hand-pick candidates that it would support and ultimately publicly endorse.”
It added that a “former PRC Commercial Consul informed PRC businesses of the rules regarding Canadian political contributions and ‘urged particular business leaders to donate through Canadian subsidiaries and acquisitions.’”
In Ontario, Vincent Ke, the Progressive Conservative MPP from Don Valley North, was kicked out of the PC caucus by Premier Doug Ford after he was named as one of the officials who funnelled money from the Chinese Consulate in Toronto to federal candidates. Ke is elected to the same riding provincially as the federal riding that embattled Liberal MP Han Dong, who was also accused of funnelling money. The difference is that while Ford dismissed Ke from the PC caucus, Trudeau defended Dong and refused to kick him out of the Liberal caucus. When it comes to the Trudeau Liberals, there is a long history of a double standard.
Trudeau’s main line of defence to accusations he ignored specific CSIS warnings about Chinese government funding of Canadian political candidates began to wobble with the release of the documents.
Even the Toronto Star, probably the most Trudeau-friendly publication, said that opposition grilling Trudeau on the matter was "a more effective, and less inflammatory, prosecution of the Liberal case by Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre."
Even so, the Star erroneously comments on the nature of the opposition by saying: "Poilievre abandoned the nasty partisan rhetoric of the day before when he charged that Trudeau was working against Canadian interests and “covering up” support he received from Communist rulers in Beijing. Instead, Poilievre took on Trudeau in the style of former NDP leader Thomas Mulcair during the senate expenses scandal: asking basic questions, following non-answers with more “yes or no” questions, and summing up for MPs exactly how Trudeau was skating on thin ice."
For anyone watching Poilievre in Question period, and in the lead up to becoming Conservative leader, they will know that this style is something he has used for years now. For the Star to call this a new approach and relate him to Mulcair, a respected but ultimately failed political leader, is definitely humourous.
Trudeau said Canadians would be able to trust a soon-to-be-named outside expert who will advise whether an inquiry is needed or not. He said: “To be quite honest, I know that no matter what I say, Canadians continue to have questions about what we did and what we didn’t, and that is why an independent special rapporteur is going to be able to look at the entire landscape and dig deeply into everything anyone knew at any point.”
The reason why Canadians will still have questions is because up until this week Trudeau was still denying that he knew anything about the matter. This week, Trudeau did a reversal that was so complete, so colossal, it is frankly amazing that he didn’t suffer actual whiplash. But you knew that he finally knew he could ignore the crisis no longer.
So, he stood before the media for almost an hour, and pretended to answer questions in that cloying, counterfeit manner he uses whenever he’s caught. Except he didn’t answer the key question, however many times he was asked it. Namely, how can he decide who will investigate China’s malfeasance — and what their terms of reference are, and when they will report — when he, him, is the prime beneficiary of the interference?
Trudeau is not just facing outside criticism, it's within his own party too. Scarborough-Guildwood MP John McKay, who chairs the Commons national defence committee, said: “My views are that this is far larger than election interference allegations. The government of China is an existential threat to Canada on a multiplicity of levels, and we need to come to grips with that. It’s more than the election. It’s at the universities. It’s at the police stations. It’s at the Confucius Institutes. It’s at the exploitation of resources, et cetera, et cetera. I think it is far bigger than that.”
And that's the thing. Trudeau stonewalling a public inquiry from happening, and continuing to pretend he has no idea of what is going on is shameful. That he benefited directly from such interference and is refusing to even have a non-partisan investigation is terrible as well. It's clear more than ever that something terrible is happening in Canada, and a public inquiry is needed to get to the bottom of it.
Supplementals:

The most recent push by the federal government is targeting reductions Canada Health Transfers to provinces where “patient charges [were] levied during 2020-2021, for medically necessary services that should be accessible to patients at no cost.”
Alberta will see its Canada Health Transfers deducted by $13.8m.
Federal Health Minister Jean-Yves Duclos said, “There has been evidence of residents paying out of pocket to access diagnostic services such as ultrasounds, MRI and CT scans — services that should be accessible at no cost.”
In Alberta it has been possible to purchase a MRI or other diagnostic scan since the mid-1990s. The process has spread across the country and until this point has not been a source of concern to the point the federal government actively sought to punish the provinces.
The Canada Health Act Annual reports detail the deductions that each province has seen since the beginning of the Canada Health Act. BC by far has faced the most deductions for hospitals charging extra to patients and patients needing to pay to access abortion services.
Since April 1, 2020 the Canada Health Act has featured a Diagnostic Services Policy which aims to eliminate patient charges for diagnostic services in the provinces.
The clause for the federal government to do this has existed since then but it has not been used.
We’ll get to why that might be in a little bit.
Alberta will see a deduction of about $13.8m while BC Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia will also see deductions, with BC’s being the biggest at $23m next to Quebec’s $41.8m.
Media pundits have been quick to say that this is a battle brought on by Alberta but the numbers show that BC and Quebec are larger offenders than our wonderful province.
The federal government is going after the provinces within the realm of the Canada Health Act while we’re told that Health Care is a provincial responsibility.
This is one of many reasons why some politician from any party needs to have the will to open and reform the Canada Health Act to meet the realities of our current problems.
Presently the median (otherwise known as average) wait time in Alberta for a MRI is 8.9 weeks with the bulk of people waiting between 7 weeks and 3 months. The majority wait 26.6 weeks or just over 6 months.
CT scans in the province see 43.6% of people served in under 21 days, an average wait of 3.7 weeks, and the majority will wait 14 weeks or almost 4 months.
Cancer statistics are equally bad with half of people province wide waiting 3.9 weeks and 90% of people seeing service after 11 weeks for just their first consultation with an oncologist for radiation treatment. For the referral to an oncologist for chemotherapy 50% of people will be seen in 3 weeks and 90% within 7.7 weeks.
We could look at gallbladder’s or we could look at hernias or hysterectomies or heart valves or anything but the general trend is that wait times are high and since the 1990s there has been a demand to utilize private services in the province.
The province can get the money back if they present a reimbursement action plan to eliminate the charges to the patient and the process that lead to the charges within two years.
With wait times high it’s clear that the bureaucrats who are part of the federal health ministry knew that enforcing this during the pandemic would have lead to even more strain on our system.
The reason to do it now should be questioned with the timing of the coming spring election.
UCP Health Minister Jason Copping said, “I understand there’s been ongoing conversations about the interpretation of ‘medically necessary’ and payment for medically necessary and how that works in the regulations… As a government, we fully support that when there’s medically necessary diagnostic imaging and other procedures that need to be done, that needs to be covered under the Alberta Health Insurance Act. So, we’re on the same page. There is some dispute about how that’s actually being interpreted by the federal government.”
The UCP supports health care and even added more money to it as we covered in the budget last week but the private healthcare bogeyman is poorly understood.
The unfortunate summation is that if you’re sick and are in the hospital, you’ll get your scan promptly. But if you’re there you’re probably already sicker than you like.
That’s why many seek out the option for private diagnostic imaging or even sometimes visit the United States for care.
This story needs and should serve as an eye opener to Canadians that private imaging has been going on for years and the federal government’s aim to shut it down looks political and will have the likely side effect of making wait times worse.
This action is downright horrible if it results in provinces clamping down on private services when viewed in comparison to wait times.
It’s time to have an adult conversation about what changes, if any, the Canada Health Act needs for the 21st century.
Supplementals:

B.C. Premier David Eby pressured to stick with daylight time for good this weekend

March is upon us again, and in Canada that means this weekend we'll be springing forward an hour into daylight savings time. In Alberta, any change to the current status quo is dead, owing to a 2021 referendum where 50.24% voted to keep changing the clocks. In BC, the matter is still hotly contested, at least at two particular times of the year.
In 2019, the BC NDP held a 'government survey' on daylight savings time, in which 93% respondents indicated they would prefer a move to permanent Daylight Saving Time. However, 54% responded that it was “important” or “very important” for B.C. to align its time observance with neighbouring jurisdictions. The Yukon has already enacted the change in 2020, now observing Mountain Standard time year round, the same time zone that Alberta observes in the winter, and the same one that BC observes in the summer.
Health concerns were also a major factor to stop clock changing. The time change can disrupt circadian rhythms, which is the process that regulates our sleeping cycle. It can cause some people to lose sleep for several days after the time change. and the resulting fatigue can affect their ability to safely drive.
Researchers have cited a six per cent increase in fatal vehicle collisions in the U.S. through the first five work days after the switch to Daylight Saving Time. Fatigued drivers are more likely to take risks and forget or ignore normal checks or procedures. They’re less able to judge distance, speed, and time, and are also less able to absorb critical driving information and respond to it.
The problem does not lie with waiting on BC's Canadian neighbours, but our American ones. According to the BC government, "On October 31, 2019, government introduced legislative amendments that will allow for a future move to permanent daylight saving time. The change will not take effect until B.C. can maintain alignment with Washington, Oregon, California and Yukon, which are all in the process of creating or enacting similar legislation."
Former Premier John Horgan said in the fall of 2019: "The people of British Columbia have spoken and their collective voice has come through loudly and clearly. When we spring forward next year in 2020, that will be the last time we do it."
However, that legislation has yet to be enacted, which has prompted comments from the Opposition House leader Todd Stone toward new premier David Eby this past week: “Instead of springing forward to act on permanent daylight saving time, the premier is falling back on tired excuses. It’s time to wake up and smell the coffee. Is the premier going to deliver real change or is he going to keep sleeping on the job?”
Eby has been steadfast in his approach, as he said the government is still waiting to see if a number of U.S. west coast states will join the province in abolishing daylight saving time. Eby says B.C.’s close integration with the U.S. gives rise to legitimate business concerns about being in a different time zone, and the need to stay aligned is the “sole reason” the time change hasn’t already been abolished.
“We are going to work in partnership with the United States, in particular the states down the western coast and Yukon, to move in sync. I think all of us will be delighted to see the back end of daylight savings time.”
Oregon and Washington states passed legislation in 2019 to make daylight saving permanent, while voters in California passed a proposition in favour of the change in November 2018. However, in a country that favours regional state's rights more than Canada, the time change surprisingly requires a federal bill to be passed.
The U.S. bill to authorize the change south of the border has been repeatedly thwarted, but it is now back in play. Last week, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio reintroduced the Sunshine Protection Act, which would allow daylight saving time to be made permanent. A previous version passed the Senate unanimously in March 2022 but failed to make it to a vote in the House of Representatives.
Rubio said in a statement: "This ritual of changing time twice a year is stupid. Locking the clock has overwhelming bipartisan and popular support. This Congress, I hope that we can finally get this done."
The issue is a rare one in D.C. in that it's not specific to just one party — there are Republican and Democratic supporters and opponents. Thomas Gray, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Texas at Dallas, says that "It passed the Senate last year, but it definitely passed because people weren't paying attention."
Gray, who was working in D.C. last March as a congressional fellow and was there during the vote, said many senators were shocked when the bill passed the Senate and some thought they were voting on something "totally innocuous." The senators, he said, were asked by media outlets why they voted as they did. "And then they answer 'I did what now? What did I do?' "
Republican Sen. John Thune, for example, whose job it was to count votes as a minority whip, learned the legislation had passed from reporters, the Washington Post reported at the time. Thune asked: "Whose bill is it? It passed?"
Democrat Majority whip Sen. Dick Durbin , also learned from the media that the legislation had passed to make the spring forward permanent. He asked: "Made what permanent?"
Gray believes the vote may have inspired those opposed to the bill to take action and be less complacent. Now, he says, both sides are fighting vigorously about the issue. "Which, to me, lowers the chance that it ultimately succeeds."
But UBC business professor Werner Antweiler says he is more optimistic, largely because the House is now run by Republicans, so the bill introduced by one of their own will be easier to pass. He said: "The last House was run by Nancy Pelosi, and she didn't really have much time for focusing on an agenda that wasn't close to theirs. And even though [the bill] was bipartisan, it basically got stuck in a committee. It wasn't moved forward for what appeared to be political considerations."
So 4 years later, BC is still waiting on the US to figure out how to pass a bill with large bipartisan support in a hotly contested political climate. At least for the issue of clock changing, having Republicans in charge will benefit BC. Still, even as we wait, time waits for no one, so at least for now, British Columbians will continue to change our clocks.
Supplementals:

Firing Line

Heritage Minister rejects key C-11 amendment, puts himself on potential collision course with Senators

One of the topics we’ve covered in the past is Bill C-11 otherwise known as the Government’s Streaming Act.
The Bill modifies the Broadcasting Act with the intent of having streaming providers provide more Canadian Content.
The core of the matter is focused on ensuring social media and streaming companies are subjected to regulation just like traditional broadcasters are in that they will have to either showcase the appropriate amount of Canadian content and pay “their fair share” to Canadian content creators.
“Fair share” definition.
The Bill just recently got back from the Senate where Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez rejected a number of Senate amendments.
Responding to the media he said, “As promised we are accepting amendments that ensure tech giants pay their fair share toward our culture, and we are declining amendments that create loopholes.”
One of the key changes that was not accepted was a change made to clarify that user generated content (videos posted to YouTube, for example) would not be included in the requirements.
Many content creators across the country are concerned about this and now feel the government is dismissing their concerns.
Putting two and two together, this means that the government likely sees video created by large Canadian content creators as part of a loophole.
The government this week and all of the Trudeau Liberal MPs have been splitting hairs over whether or not that is the case and whether YouTube videos would indeed be regulated.
Michael Geist, the University of Ottawa’s Canada Research Chair in Internet Law, said that the rejection this week, “finally removes any pretense of the government’s true Bill C-11 intent. Rather than citing misleading lobbying claims opposed to the change, it calls it like it is: the government wants the power to direct the CRTC on user content today and the power to exert further regulation tomorrow. Regulatory power over user content today is confirmed by a bill that covers user TikToks, many Youtube videos, podcasts, and other content and future regulation is plainly framed as ‘adapting to technological changes’”
In order for us to be fully transparent, we must also report that Minister Rodriguez also rejected an amendment that would have required tech platforms to demand age verification to stop children under the age of 18 from accessing sexually explicit material. Their reasoning for this is that it did not belong in the particular Bill.
Another rejected amendment would have stopped the CBC from carrying sponsored content that looked similar to news. The CBC objected to the amendment and from the outside, it looks like the government went to bat for CBC.
The issue here is that the government is subtly promoting the CBC and allowing them to sell content that could be opinion based in the guise of news which as we address each and every week is a major problem.
The frame being employed by the NDP is that they are supporting the Liberals on this because the Conservatives are siding with the tech companies, from leader Jagmeet Singh, “Web giants don't contribute to Canadian culture, don't pay into a fund to support local Canadian artists, musicians, movies, films, culture in general. And we think that's unfair… and we stand by our position that they should also be contributing their fair share.”
Conservative MP Melissa Lantasman said, “For a government that claims user-generated content was never going to be part of the bill, it took out that amendment and then rejected the fact that the amendment would have been put back in the bill. It says the opposite right in the rationale. The government wants the power to direct the CRTC on user content today, and it wants the power to do it in the future. Regulatory power over user content is confirmed in that explanation. It covers YouTube videos, podcasts and any other content on platforms we do not even know exist yet, because that is what “adapting to technological changes” means. The government has regulated something that does not even exist yet.”
This puts Canada as being the only country in the world to try and regulate user content on social media without outright shutting it down.
Disruption in the modern era to business, media, and institutions comes from the internet. The fact the government is pushing down this path should raise alarm bells with anyone who’s not satisfied with the government picking winners and losers.
We also have to realize the chilling effect this can create. This isn’t going to regulate millionaires, it’s going to regulate anyone who is a creator in this country.
The alternative is that if someone becomes really big, they either shut down or leave the country. Either way, that’s a net chilling effect on our economy.
The high level version of what’s going on can be summed up as one of two alternatives:
1. The government is doing this to protect a niche view in the Ottawa-Montreal corridor that anything that can be done to raise the profile of Canadian content should be done.
2. They’re doing this to further protect the mainstream media and broadcasting institution in Canada. If they need protecting from independent creators then that says all we need to know about the state of the media in the country.
Either way, unless the NDP changes their mind or the Senate manages a filibuster on this legislation, it’s due to become the law of the land sooner rather than later.
Supplementals:

Quote of the Week

“My views are that this is far larger than election interference allegations. The government of China is an existential threat to Canada on a multiplicity of levels, and we need to come to grips with that. It’s more than the election. It’s at the universities. It’s at the police stations. It’s at the Confucius Institutes. It’s at the exploitation of resources, et cetera, et cetera. I think it is far bigger than that.” - Liberal MP John McKay of Scarborough-Guildwood on the threat of China to Canada

Word of the Week

Rapporteur - a person who is appointed by an organization to report on the proceedings of its meetings

How to Find Us
Westerncontext.ca

westerncontext.ca/subscribe

westerncontext.ca/support

twitter.com/westerncontext

facebook.com/westerncontext

Show Data

Episode Title: It’s Time

Teaser: Trudeau appoints a special rapporteur to investigate Chinese interference, Alberta and the federal government are at odds over health transfers, and BC will continue changing clocks. Also, Bill C-11 amendments get rejected by Trudeau’s Heritage Minister.

Recorded Date: March 11, 2023

Release Date: March 12, 2023

Duration: 57:53

Edit Notes: China story pauses

Podcast Summary Notes

Duration: XX:XX