The demise of the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations is not a good look
It was one of Parliament’s only open windows into the Trudeau government’s secretive dealings with Xi Jinping’s regime in Beijing. It was one of the few vantage points available for Canadians to get a glimpse of the Chinese regime’s influence operations in Canada.
Now it’s gone, at least for now, and while the Liberals’ aversion to any scrutiny of its China diplomacy is well known, it’s falling to the Conservative Party to shake off suspicions that its own internal calculus is the reason why the House of Commons Special Committee on Canada-China Relations is no more.
“Conservatives are not going soft on China,” Michael Chong, the Conservatives’ shadow minister for foreign affairs, told me Tuesday. “It’s not true. It’s just not true. I want to scream it from the rooftops. The Conservative Party’s position on China remains unchanged, full stop.”
And it is true enough, as far as it goes, but it’s going to be hard for the Conservatives to argue that they’re not getting squeamish about their party’s focus on the Xi regime’s malignant conduct in China, in Canada and abroad — no matter how broadly the party’s policy accords with overwhelming Canadian public opinion.
During the September federal election campaign, the Conservatives were battered by a disinformation operation carried out by Beijing and its proxies in Canada that cost them votes in 13 ridings across Canada, an internal party review has concluded. In as many as three ridings, it’s likely that the operation was effective enough to tip the scales in favour of the Liberal candidates.
The Conservatives managed to establish the Special Committee over the Liberals’ objections in December 2019, but Conservative leader Erin O’Toole won’t be seeing to its restoration when Parliament resumes January 31. Chong makes a persuasive case that the reason is largely a matter of logistics.
The technical capacities of the pandemic-accommodating “hybrid” Parliament are such that for now, apart from the House of Commons’ two dozen standing committees, there’s no resources to run a third Special Committee on top of the new Special Committee on Afghanistan, a Conservative initiative, and the Liberals’ new Standing Committee on Science and Research. Chong said there’s a good chance the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations could be up and running again by June.
Even so, it’s not a good look. David Mulroney, a senior fellow with the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy and a former ambassador to China, described the Special Committee’s demise as a “kneecapping,” describing the event this way: “A committee where we learned about Chinese influence operations is shot down by a Chinese influence operation.”
The Atlantic Council’s Forensic Research Lab and the Canadian NGO Disinfo Watch have conducted analyses of the September election that accord with the Conservative Party’s internal assessment and bear out warnings from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service delivered to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau last summer. The Atlantic Council’s researchers concluded: “China-linked actors took an active role in seeking to influence the September 20, 2021 parliamentary election in Canada, displaying signs of a coordinated campaign to influence behaviour among the Chinese diaspora voting in the election.”
That campaign was laser-focused on the Conservatives’ proposal for a foreign agents registration law along the lines of the Australian model. In Chinese-language media and in a variety of China-based social platforms, where CSIS says Beijing’s influence operations have been “normalized,” the proposed law was represented in routinely hysterical terms, to the effect that Chinese-Canadians would be forced to register en masse as foreign agents for merely maintaining relations with businesses or family members back in the Peoples Republic of China.
The Conservative proposal was the subject of a private members’ bill put forward by the popular Metro Vancouver MP Kenny Chiu, whose campaign was badgered constantly with disinformation. Chiu ended up losing to his Liberal opponent by 3,000 votes. Ironically, the Conservative’s proposed law, which would merely require lobbyists and agents of foreign powers to register with Ottawa, has been more convincingly criticized for being too lenient.
Tarun Krishnakumar, a researcher with the Foreign Influence Transparency Initiative at the Center for International Policy in Washington, D.C., describes the Conservatives’ proposed law as “extremely limited in terms of the range of influence activities it aims to cover.” It fails to take into account the diverse targets and channels of foreign influence campaigns, and would apply only to “an extremely narrow slice of the overall influence and interference spectrum identified by agencies including the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.”
Chong said the Conservatives took a beating at polls in many ridings where Chinese diaspora communities are concentrated not because of the Conservatives’ actual policies, but because of the way they were distorted, misrepresented, and mischaracterized as racist and far right. That’s another irony, since the party’s carefully articulated standpoints would be perfectly suitable to any party across the political spectrum that pays close attention to the Xi regime’s domestic and foreign belligerence and bullying. The positions staked out by the Conservatives are also direct responses to the specific appeals of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Chinese human rights defenders, Hong Kong Democrats, Canada’s Uyghur community, the Taiwanese diaspora, and so on.
It hasn’t helped that among the Conservative dissenters calling for Erin O’Toole to be subjected to an early leadership review is Burt Chen, a now-deposed member of the Conservative Party’s national council, who protested that O’Toole has been too hard on China. And a self-described Chinese-Canadian Conservative organization, not affiliated with the party but aligned with Beijing, blasted O’Toole for the “hatred” embedded in the Conservatives’ policies, slammed Canada for having “started the war” that led to the arrests of Michel Kovrig and Michael Spavor, objected to Canadians raising concerns about human rights in China, and spoke out in support of Beijing’s military overflights of Taiwan’s air-defence zone.
So it’s a mess, Chong said. “It wasn’t all our fault, but we certainly didn’t help ourselves.” The Conservatives’ “war room” didn’t have a single Mandarin or Cantonese speaker on staff. While CSIS has outlined the alarming extent of pro-Beijing control of Chinese-language media and social-media platforms popular in Canada, the Conservatives should have been ready with a rapid-response strategy to counter all the propaganda. “Even if we had one we might have been on our back heel, but at least we’d have had a fighting chance.”
Beijing’s well-documented “elite capture” strategy in Canada and its multi-dimensional influence operations are matters of urgent national security and sovereignty, Chong said — matters far too important to avoid confronting, even if it will mean losing some votes in certain ridings.
But for now, at least, there will be no Special Committee on Canada-China Relations to shine a light on any of this.
Outside of sports and a “Cold front coming down from Canada,” American news media only report on Canadian events that they believe are, or will be, influential to the US. Therefore, when Justin Trudeau’s announcement, having finally read the room, that Canada will be reducing the number of permanent residents admitted by more than 20 percent and temporary residents like skilled workers and college students will be cut by more than half made news south of the border, I knew the American media felt Trudeau’s about-face on immigration was newsworthy because many Americans would relate to Trudeau realizing Canada was accepting more immigrants than it could manage and are hoping their next POTUS will follow Trudeau’s playbook.
Canada, with lots of space and lacking convenient geographical ways for illegal immigrants to enter the country, though still many do, has a global reputation for being incredibly accepting of immigrants. On the surface, Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver appear to be multicultural havens. However, as the saying goes, “Too much of a good thing is never good,” resulting in a sharp rise in anti-immigrant sentiment, which you can almost taste in the air. A growing number of Canadians, regardless of their political affiliation, are blaming recent immigrants for causing the housing affordability crises, inflation, rise in crime and unemployment/stagnant wages.
Throughout history, populations have engulfed themselves in a tribal frenzy, a psychological state where people identify strongly with their own group, often leading to a ‘us versus them’ mentality. This has led to quick shifts from complacency to panic and finger-pointing at groups outside their tribe, a phenomenon that is not unique to any particular culture or time period.
My take on why the American news media found Trudeau’s blatantly obvious attempt to save his political career, balancing appeasement between the pitchfork crowd, who want a halt to immigration until Canada gets its house in order, and immigrant voters, who traditionally vote Liberal, newsworthy; the American news media, as do I, believe immigration fatigue is why Kamala Harris is going to lose on November 5th.
Because they frequently get the outcome wrong, I don’t take polls seriously. According to polls in 2014, Tim Hudak’s Progressive Conservatives and Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals were in a dead heat in Ontario, yet Wynne won with more than twice as many seats. In the 2018 Quebec election, most polls had the Coalition Avenir Québec with a 1-to-5-point lead over the governing Liberals. The result: The Coalition Avenir Québec enjoyed a landslide victory, winning 74 of 125 seats. Then there’s how the 2016 US election polls showing Donald Trump didn’t have a chance of winning against Hillary Clinton were ridiculously way off, highlighting the importance of the election day poll and, applicable in this election as it was in 2016, not to discount ‘shy Trump supporters;’ voters who support Trump but are hesitant to express their views publicly due to social or political pressure.
My distrust in polls aside, polls indicate Harris is leading by a few points. One would think that Trump’s many over-the-top shenanigans, which would be entertaining were he not the POTUS or again seeking the Oval Office, would have him far down in the polls. Trump is toe-to-toe with Harris in the polls because his approach to the economy—middle-class Americans are nostalgic for the relatively strong economic performance during Trump’s first three years in office—and immigration, which Americans are hyper-focused on right now, appeals to many Americans. In his quest to win votes, Trump is doing what anyone seeking political office needs to do: telling the people what they want to hear, strategically using populism—populism that serves your best interests is good populism—to evoke emotional responses. Harris isn’t doing herself any favours, nor moving voters, by going the “But, but… the orange man is bad!” route, while Trump cultivates support from “weird” marginal voting groups.
To Harris’s credit, things could have fallen apart when Biden abruptly stepped aside. Instead, Harris quickly clinched the nomination and had a strong first few weeks, erasing the deficit Biden had given her. The Democratic convention was a success, as was her acceptance speech. Her performance at the September 10th debate with Donald Trump was first-rate.
Harris’ Achilles heel is she’s now making promises she could have made and implemented while VP, making immigration and the economy Harris’ liabilities, especially since she’s been sitting next to Biden, watching the US turn into the circus it has become. These liabilities, basically her only liabilities, negate her stance on abortion, democracy, healthcare, a long-winning issue for Democrats, and Trump’s character. All Harris has offered voters is “feel-good vibes” over substance. In contrast, Trump offers the tangible political tornado (read: steamroll the problems Americans are facing) many Americans seek. With Trump, there’s no doubt that change, admittedly in a messy fashion, will happen. If enough Americans believe the changes he’ll implement will benefit them and their country…
The case against Harris on immigration, at a time when there’s a huge global backlash to immigration, even as the American news media are pointing out, in famously immigrant-friendly Canada, is relatively straightforward: During the first three years of the Biden-Harris administration, illegal Southern border crossings increased significantly.
The words illegal immigration, to put it mildly, irks most Americans. On the legal immigration front, according to Forbes, most billion-dollar startups were founded by immigrants. Google, Microsoft, and Oracle, to name three, have immigrants as CEOs. Immigrants, with tech skills and an entrepreneurial thirst, have kept America leading the world. I like to think that Americans and Canadians understand the best immigration policy is to strategically let enough of these immigrants in who’ll increase GDP and tax base and not rely on social programs. In other words, Americans and Canadians, and arguably citizens of European countries, expect their governments to be more strategic about immigration.
The days of the words on a bronze plaque mounted inside the Statue of Liberty pedestal’s lower level, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…” are no longer tolerated. Americans only want immigrants who’ll benefit America.
Does Trump demagogue the immigration issue with xenophobic and racist tropes, many of which are outright lies, such as claiming Haitian immigrants in Ohio are abducting and eating pets? Absolutely. However, such unhinged talk signals to Americans who are worried about the steady influx of illegal immigrants into their country that Trump can handle immigration so that it’s beneficial to the country as opposed to being an issue of economic stress.
In many ways, if polls are to be believed, Harris is paying the price for Biden and her lax policies early in their term. Yes, stimulus spending quickly rebuilt the job market, but at the cost of higher inflation. Loosen border policies at a time when anti-immigrant sentiment was increasing was a gross miscalculation, much like Trudeau’s immigration quota increase, and Biden indulging himself in running for re-election should never have happened.
If Trump wins, Democrats will proclaim that everyone is sexist, racist and misogynous, not to mention a likely White Supremacist, and for good measure, they’ll beat the “voter suppression” button. If Harris wins, Trump supporters will repeat voter fraud—since July, Elon Musk has tweeted on Twitter at least 22 times about voters being “imported” from abroad—being widespread.
Regardless of who wins tomorrow, Americans need to cool down; and give the divisive rhetoric a long overdue break. The right to an opinion belongs to everyone. Someone whose opinion differs from yours is not by default sexist, racist, a fascist or anything else; they simply disagree with you. Americans adopting the respectful mindset to agree to disagree would be the best thing they could do for the United States of America.
______________________________________________________________
Nick Kossovan, a self-described connoisseur of human psychology, writes about what’s
on his mind from Toronto. You can follow Nick on Twitter and Instagram @NKossovan.
PHOENIX (AP) — Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a prominent proponent of debunked public health claims whom Donald Trump has promised to put in charge of health initiatives, said Saturday that Trump would push to remove fluoride from drinking water on his first day in office if elected president.
Fluoride strengthens teeth and reduces cavities by replacing minerals lost during normal wear and tear, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The addition of low levels of fluoride to drinking water has long been considered one of the greatest public health achievements of the last century.
Kennedy made the declaration Saturday on the social media platform X alongside a variety of claims about the heath effects of fluoride.
“On January 20, the Trump White House will advise all U.S. water systems to remove fluoride from public water,” Kennedy wrote. Trump and his wife, Melania Trump, “want to Make America Healthy Again,” he added, repeating a phrase Trump often uses and links to Kennedy.
Trump told NBC News on Sunday that he had not spoken to Kennedy about fluoride yet, “but it sounds OK to me. You know it’s possible.”
The former president declined to say whether he would seek a Cabinet role for Kennedy, a job that would require Senate confirmation, but added, “He’s going to have a big role in the administration.”
Asked whether banning certain vaccines would be on the table, Trump said he would talk to Kennedy and others about that. Trump described Kennedy as “a very talented guy and has strong views.”
The sudden and unexpected weekend social media post evoked the chaotic policymaking that defined Trump’s White House tenure, when he would issue policy declarations on Twitter at virtually all hours. It also underscored the concerns many experts have about Kennedy, who has long promoted debunked theories about vaccine safety, having influence over U.S. public health.
In 1950, federal officials endorsed water fluoridation to prevent tooth decay, and continued to promote it even after fluoride toothpaste brands hit the market several years later. Though fluoride can come from a number of sources, drinking water is the main source for Americans, researchers say.
Officials lowered their recommendation for drinking water fluoride levels in 2015 to address a tooth condition called fluorosis, that can cause splotches on teeth and was becoming more common in U.S. kids.
In August, a federal agency determined “with moderate confidence” that there is a link between higher levels of fluoride exposure and lower IQ in kids. The National Toxicology Program based its conclusion on studies involving fluoride levels at about twice the recommended limit for drinking water.
A federal judge later cited that study in ordering the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to further regulate fluoride in drinking water. U.S. District Judge Edward Chen cautioned that it’s not certain that the amount of fluoride typically added to water is causing lower IQ in kids, but he concluded that mounting research points to an unreasonable risk that it could be. He ordered the EPA to take steps to lower that risk, but didn’t say what those measures should be.
In his X post Saturday, Kennedy tagged Michael Connett, the lead attorney representing the plaintiff in that lawsuit, the environmental advocacy group Food & Water Watch.
Kennedy’s anti-vaccine organization has a lawsuit pending against news organizations including The Associated Press, accusing them of violating antitrust laws by taking action to identify misinformation, including about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines. Kennedy is on leave from the group but is listed as one of its attorneys in the lawsuit.
What role Kennedy might hold if Trump wins on Tuesday remains unclear. Kennedy recently told NewsNation that Trump asked him to “reorganize” agencies including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration and some agencies under the Department of Agriculture.
But for now, the former independent presidential candidate has become one of Trump’s top surrogates. Trump frequently mentions having the support of Kennedy, a scion of a Democratic dynasty and the son of former Attorney General Robert Kennedy and nephew of President John F. Kennedy.
Kennedy traveled with Trump Friday and spoke at his rallies in Michigan and Wisconsin.
Trump said Saturday that he told Kennedy: “You can work on food, you can work on anything you want” except oil policy.
“He wants health, he wants women’s health, he wants men’s health, he wants kids, he wants everything,” Trump added.
Danielle Smith receives overwhelming support at United Conservative Party convention
Jacques Villeneuve calls thieves of late father’s bronze monument soulless idiots
B.C. port employers to launch lockout at terminals as labour disruption begins
RFK Jr. says Trump would push to remove fluoride from drinking water. ‘It’s possible,’ Trump says
Nova Scotia Liberals release four-year $2.3-billion election platform
Poilievre asks premiers to axe their sales taxes on new homes worth under $1 million
‘Canada is watching’: New northern Alberta police service trying to lead by example
Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey treated for dehydration at campaign rally
Manitoba eyes speedier approval, more Indigenous involvement in mining sector
