adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Politics

What is the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation and what does it do?

Published

 on

The Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation has been mired in a political controversy that pushed the organization’s president and board to resign last week.

At the centre of the controversy is a 2016 donation from two donors with links to the Chinese government. The donors pledged $200,000 to the foundation at the time.

While the donation spurred an initial controversy in 2016, interest in the story revived in the wake of recent media reports stating Beijing interfered in the 2019 and 2021 federal elections. The foundation said it would reimburse the funds but apparently ran into administrative roadblocks. (Radio-Canada has confirmed the donation has since been returned.)

The foundation said last week’s resignations were in response to the latest controversy about the donation.

“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,” a statement from the foundation said.

But reports from the Globe and Mail and La Presse suggest the resignations stemmed from the foundation’s handling of the donation.

The controversy has also spilled into the halls of Parliament.

Morris Rosenberg — who authored a government report on electoral interference in the 2021 election — and former governor general David Johnston — tapped by the Liberal government to be its special rapporteur on election interference — have had past affiliations with the foundation. Conservatives have argued that fact compromises both investigations.

Last week’s resignations only spurred more outrage from the opposition, with both Conservatives and Bloc Québécois MPs calling for investigations of the foundation. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre wrote to the Canada Revenue Agency asking it to “launch a fulsome audit” of the foundation, with a focus on donations the charity received from foreign governments.

On Friday, the foundation itself asked the auditor general to probe the 2016 donation.

Here’s what we know about the organization at the centre of the controversy.

What does it do?

The foundation was established in 2001 to honour the former prime minister, who died in 2000. In 2002, the federal government endowed it with $125 million to help fund its core operations. It also accepts private donations. The foundation describes itself as an independent and nonpartisan charity.

The foundation helps fund and promote academic and public interest research. It awards up to 20 doctoral scholarships each year and finances up to five research fellowships. It also supports a network of “mentors” to help young academics and organizes public events, such as book launches and lectures on public policy issues.

These mentors — who have included former Supreme Court justices, current and former politicians, journalists and business leaders — receive an honorarium and travel costs during their term.

Where does its money come from?

As part of the 2002 agreement with the federal government, the foundation cannot spend the $125 million endowment. Instead, it was invested; only income earned from returns on the investment can fund the foundation’s activities.

According to its 2021-22 charity filings with the CRA, the organization earned millions of dollars in revenue from returns on its investments. It raked in less than a million dollars in donations.

Who runs the foundation?

The foundation has two primary governing bodies: the membership team and the board of directors.

The members are responsible for appointing board members and changing bylaws, while the board is more involved with the management activities of the foundation.

Most of the board of directors and its president, Pascale Fournier — who herself is a former recipient of a Trudeau scholarship — resigned last week.

The foundation said three board members will stay on until new ones can be selected.

 

Trudeau reacts to CEO, board resignations at Trudeau Foundation

 

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says the foundation will continue to make a positive impact on academic institutions across the country.

When he was asked recently about the foundation, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau insisted he no longer has any ties to the organization bearing his father’s name.

Trudeau was directly involved in the foundation from its creation in 2002 until 2014, after he was elected leader of the Liberal Party.

“The Trudeau Foundation is a foundation with which I have absolutely no intersection,” Trudeau told a news conference Tuesday.

But the prime minister’s brother, Alexandre Trudeau, is currently one of the foundation’s members.

Pierre Trudeau's son, Alexandre Trudeau, after announcing the first Trudeau Foundation scholars and fellowships in February 2003.
Pierre Trudeau’s son, Alexandre Trudeau, after announcing the first Trudeau Foundation scholars and fellowships in February 2003. (CBC)

Some members are people who were close to Pierre Trudeau, such as his former principal secretary Thomas Axworthy and senior economic adviser Denise Chong.

The board of directors also has had members who were close to the former prime minister — including his daughter Sarah Coyne, who was one the members who resigned last week.

The list of resignations also includes a wide range of academics, lawyers, former civil servants, and business leaders.

Archived photos of former prime minister Pierre Trudeau and former Alberta premier Peter Lougheed.
Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and Alberta Premier Peter Lougheed were two political giants who squared off over the National Energy Policy in the early ’80s. Lougheed would later sit on the Trudeau Foundation’s board of directors. (The Canadian Press)

Well-known Canadians have served on the board in the past, including Peter Lougheed and Bill Davis, former conservative premiers of Alberta and Ontario.

Former NDP MP Megan Leslie and former Conservative cabinet minister Chuck Strahl also have been board members, although Strahl resigned in 2016 during the initial donation controversy.

The foundation says directors and members serve on a voluntary basis. According to its CRA filings, the foundation has 13 full-time and three part-time administrative staff.

Who else has been affiliated with the foundation?

The foundation appears to attract mentors from all walks of life. Civil servants, journalists, academics, activists and authors have all been mentors to the foundation’s scholars.

Former Supreme Court justices Beverly McLachlin, Louise Arbour, Marie Deschamps, Thomas Cromwell and Frank Iacobucci were mentors in the past. The latter two were nominated by Conservative prime ministers Stephen Harper and Brian Mulroney.

Federal, provincial and municipal politicians of all political stripes have also been mentors.

Many of the former politicians who have signed up to mentor Trudeau scholars in the past are associated with the Liberal Party, such as former cabinet ministers Anne McLellan and Pierre Pettigrew.

An archived photo of the 1929 federal leaders debate, featuring Ed Broadbent, Pierre Trudeau and Joe Clark.
The great debate, left to right, Ed Broadbent, Pierre Trudeau and Joe Clark, May 13, 1979. Broadbent was a mentor to a Trudeau scholar in 2010. (Peter Bregg/The Canadian Press)

Former Conservative cabinet minister and senator Michael Fortier was a mentor as well. So was Strahl before he became a member of the foundation’s board.

Other past mentors include former NDP leader Ed Broadbent, former NDP premiers Tony Penikett and Michael Harcourt and current Green Party co-leader Elizabeth May.

One of the foundation’s former presidents, Pierre-Gerlier Forest, was appointed president of Quebec’s public health agency — Institut national de santé publique du Québec — by the provincial government in 2022.

 

728x90x4

Source link

News

Justin Trudeau’s Announcing Cuts to Immigration Could Facilitate a Trump Win

Published

 on

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.

Continue Reading

Politics

RFK Jr. says Trump would push to remove fluoride from drinking water. ‘It’s possible,’ Trump says

Published

 on

 

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.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Danielle Smith receives overwhelming support at United Conservative Party convention

Published

 on

Danielle Smith receives overwhelming support at United Conservative Party convention

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending