REPORTS: Chrystia Freeland out as Foreign Affairs Minister, replaced by Quebec MP
Chrystia Freeland will no longer serve as foreign affairs minister, as the job will instead go to Saint-Maurice—Champlain MP Francois-Philippe Champagne.
Champagne served as minister of infrastructure and communities in the Trudeau government’s last parliament, and will be replacing cabinet faithful Chrystia Freeland. Champagne, who also worked as a trade lawyer, has served as minister of international trade in the past.
It is not yet known what position Freeland will be moved to, though it has been rumoured by sources that she will serve as deputy prime minister.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will make a formal announcement on Wednesday afternoon to unveil his new cabinet at Rideau Hall in Ottawa.
Additionally, North Vancouver MP Jonathan Wilkinson will serve as the new environment minister, according to Radio-Canada. Pablo Rodriguez will be government house leader, and Steven Guilbeault will serve as the new heritage minister, according to CBC-Radio Canada‘s sources.
The Liberal Department of the Environment is saying that they are expecting the price of gasoline to rise as a result of new red-tape, according to Blacklock’s Reporter.
Some estimates are suggesting that these new regulations will raise the price of gasoline four times as much as the Liberal carbon tax did. These price rises are expected for this year.
These new regulations have been named the “Clean Fuel Standard” by Trudeau’s government. This legislation will create sweeping new changes to how gasoline is dealt within Canada.
The Clean Fuel Standard will, for example, mandate a doubling of renewable energy in fuels and heating. This, combined with the carbon tax, will cost about $200 to $230 per tonne.
Speaking about the new regulations, the Liberal MP Sean Fraser said “believe me, affordability, in particular, is front of mind for our government … This is the way the world is going. This is not some left-wing, radical policy.”
When Bill C16 passed in 2017, many women rang the alarm against legislation that would amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code to include protection against hate speech with regard to gender identity or expression. Concerns about the Bill were that gender identity protections would supercede protections for women. While there was a promise that a gender-based analysis (GBA) report would be forthcoming, it has not been released. That’s not good enough for Jennifer Joseph, who has launched a petition for the release of this information.
“We, the undersigned, Citizens of Canada,” resolves the petition, “call upon Candice Bergen to ask for the Gender-Based Analysis report be made public, and for Statistics Canada to explain their analysis or publish the results.”
Women who voiced concerns back in 2017 were not listened to and were accused of transphobic hate speech for broaching concerns about Bill C16. Yet much of what they predicted has come to pass. Women who speak out against having male-bodied persons in women’s spaces are called names, ostracized, and shut out of those places themselves.
In 2018, Kristi Hanna left a Toronto shelter for abused women rather than share a room with a male-bodied trans person. Her complaints were unheeded by staff. Vancouver Rape Relief, Canada’s oldest rape crisis centre, was denied funding by the City for not being inclusive enough to male-bodied trans persons. A human rights complaint was filed by Kimberly Nixon in 2019 against the center for the refusal to train Nixon, born male, to become a peer counsellor. Vancouver Rape Relief did not believe that Nixon could be a peer counsellor to other women, because Nixon was not born female. A rape relief center did not want women who had been raped to have to be counselled by a male person, so they lost their funding entirely.
The case of Jessica Yaniv, who has brought multiple complaints before the Human Rights Tribunal, accusing women of being hateful for not wanting to wax her male genitalia, shows how absurd this entire thing has become. Women’s rights to determine the work they would do in their private homes were questioned under Bill C16.
The petition states that police departments across Canada are no longer recording the sex of alleged offenders, “but instead the gender by which they identify.” The reasoning is that a person’s sex is too personal, and irrelevant to the charge of a crime committed. It is reasonable to consider that this change is to avoid running afoul of Human Rights legislation. Problems with this new practice include the confusion of crime stats, which then record crimes committed by male-bodied female-identifying persons as women’s crimes.
The Bill also interferes with parental rights, forcing parents to go along with their minor children’s ideas about medical alterations to their healthy bodies.
Perhaps the biggest problem with Bill C16 is the one that is most readily dismissed by trans activists. Bill C16 seeks to rewrite protections for women by removing the definition of the word. This denial of a biological definition of the word woman is what has allowed women to be brought up on charges of human rights abuses when they define the word to exclude persons who are born male.
Bill C16 offers protected classes for “gender identity” and “gender expression,” which terms are not legally defined. This defacto changes the meaning of the word woman to “whatever if feels like” to any given individual. In essence, this has meant that a person who dresses up as stereotypically feminine can say they are a woman, and gain access to those protections, such as abused women’s refuges, rape crisis centres, women’s prisons, and women’s hospital wards, that have previously been designated for the care of women.
This is done out of compassion for the individual who identifies more with those stereotypes that are associated with the opposite sex than with their own, but in doing so, it offers no consideration for women who need spaces and protections that male-bodied persons, no matter their fashion choices, do not. This petition seeks redress of these grievances by obtaining information on the effects of the law and is open for signatures until April.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government gave nearly $10,000 of taxpayer money in 2019 to an organization that has funded and organized anti-pipeline movements.
Environment Canada, which was headed by Liberal minister Catherine McKenna at the time, made two separate payments to Tides Canada—coming to a total of $9,761.
These two payments were made in January and October of 2019.
Although it is unclear how Tides Canada chose to allocate this money, the organization has a noted history of financing anti-oil campaigns in Alberta.
Tides Canada, for instance, funded the Tsleil-Wauteuth First Nation so that they could “stop and oppose the Kinder Morgan pipeline and tanker project.”
Tides Canada has also funded and organized a campaign to save the Great Bear Rainforest, which led to Trudeau’s decision to kill the Northern Gateway Pipeline.
In January, data revealed that Alberta’s economic activity was at its lowest since the 2015-16 recession. As well as this, the province lost more than 18,000 jobs in January, despite the rest of the country adding over 34,000.
Much of Alberta’s economic troubles derive from the federal government’s inanition and inaction in building pipelines. As a result of this, a deep discontent has grown amongst Albertans towards Ottawa—culminating in both a growing separatist movement (Wexit) and the new “Buffalo Declaration“.
The rule of law is one of the most important legal principles on which Canada is based. Along with the supremacy of God, it is mentioned in the very first words of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.”
The rule of law means that we are ruled by laws, not by the whims of a King, or the clamouring of a mob. The rule of law also means that the law applies to everyone, even the King; there can be no exemptions for the King or his favourites.
Countries which practice and uphold the rule of law tend to thrive economically, socially, politically and culturally. Countries which uphold the rule of law become wealthy because people can work, buy, sell and trade in the knowledge that their property and their person are protected by law. Economies thrive when people know that the law will be enforced, and that the law will be applied to everyone, even to the King and his favourites. The rule of law provides investors, foreign and domestic, with confidence to invest their money in business projects.
Conversely, when a country condones law-breaking, investors will put their money elsewhere, and quickly. The world’s poorest and most violent countries are those where politicians are above the law, and the law is not applied equally to all.
The decisions of Canada’s politicians and police to condone–for three weeks or longer–the blockading of railway lines by aggrieved protesters violate the rule of law in at least two ways.
First, our politicians are effectively stating that individuals with strongly held political opinions are entitled to engage in illegal activities, in this case shutting down railway lines. Second, law-breaking is permitted because Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and other politicians sympathize with the protesters’ ideology and demands: the law does not apply to the King’s favourites.
What if a group of taxpayers, fed up with losing half of their earnings to three levels of government, occupied a federal government building in Ottawa? What if a bunch of pro-lifers interfered with access to an abortion clinic in Toronto? What if a contingent of Western separatists blockaded the Burrard Street Bridge in Vancouver? In all three cases, you can be sure the authorities would very quickly remove the obstructing protesters, even if the protest methods were entirely peaceful. Politicians and police would say: “You have a right to express your opinions, but preventing other people from going about their business is illegal.” Members of these three hypothetical cohorts would be lucky to get off with a warning; the blockading pro-lifers would almost certainly be prosecuted for breaking the law.
Politicians repudiate the rule of law in Canada when they elevate the concerns of Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs to a superior legal status, as more worthy than the concerns of other Canadians. This is not a comment for or against the legitimacy of the demands of Wet’suwet’en chiefs. Applying the rule of law means that everyone, regardless of political orientation or ideological conviction, must be held to account when breaking the law. Everyone, or almost everyone, has strongly felt moral convictions about various political issues, including taxation, abortion, climate change, and aboriginal rights. Depth of emotion and strength of conviction should not trump the rule of law. If we respect the rule of law, then either everybody is entitled to blockade railway lines, or nobody is.
Yet in Canada the standard is a double one. When inflicting serious damage on thousands of people by blocking railway lines in the name of an aboriginal cause, one can expect to get a phone call from the prime minister, eager to have a conversation. Why? Because of his known sympathy to aboriginal causes. Yet if anti-tax protesters, Western separatists or pro-lifers broke the law, would any of them get invited to tea with the prime minister?
The consequences of repudiating the rule of law are predictable. Rewarding law-breakers with an invitation to discuss their grievances will encourage more law-breaking in future. Investors will stop putting their money into projects and businesses in Canada. Law-abiding citizens will become apathetic and cynical regarding the bias and incompetence of their governments. Failing to enforce laws when they are broken by a politically favoured group will cause all Canadians to have less respect for all laws. Favouring some people because they have the “correct” political convictions is a sure way to destroy social cohesion and incite mistrust amongst citizens.
Upholding the rule of law will certainly result in some negative publicity, when radical or extremist groups distribute video-footage of screaming protesters getting arrested and carried off into paddy wagons. Canada and its police will be denounced aggressively as “fascist” and worse, just for upholding the rule of law. But nothing is free. The long-term costs of repudiating the rule of law are far higher than the short-term costs of some nasty name-calling.