Liberal ex-ambassador’s unsolicited China advice will only help the Conservatives get elected
With his stint as ambassador and even now after he got sacked for speaking out of hand on the extradition of Meng Wanzhou, McCallum has only served to further breed confusion and discord in the already tense relationship with China.
His latest comments suggesting that the Chinese should curb the negative comments about Canada in hope that the Conservatives don’t get elected in October are the latest nonsense to come out of his diplomatic meddling.
“Anything that is more negative against Canada will help the Conservatives, [who] are much less friendly to China than the Liberals,” said McCallum in an interview in Beijing.
In his seminal work, Middle Power, Middle Kingdom: What Canada Needs to Know about China in the 21st Century, former ambassador to China David Mulroney has offered his diagnosis on Canada’s emerging relationship with the rising global power.
One of the key points made by Mulroney is that Canadian diplomats are vastly under-prepared to deal with the Chinese. A lack of central authority and communication between Ottawa and delegates on the ground has directly led to a breakdown in foreign relations.
Nowhere is this more evident than in McCallum’s continuous embarrassing performance.
When the government is saying one thing and your own top diplomats are saying something else, the effect is disastrous. This sort of incompetence undermines the credibility and seriousness that comes with high-level diplomacy.
Mulroney himself took issue with McCallum’s latest gaffe calling it “appalling in so many ways”.
Furthermore, should we really be surprised that Chinese ambassadors are not returning Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland’s phone calls and that Xi Jinping will barely address Prime Minister Justin Trudeau? Was it not under their watch and directive that the channels of communication were all but severed?
The fact is that McCallum’s comments are not only wrongheaded, but dangerous and provide the Chinese ammunition to use for their own interests if and when we ever sit down with them at the negotiation table.
In a talk at the Centre for International Policy Studies Mulroney said that Canada requires an “ambitious and existential” foreign policy to deal with the new changing world order.
Increasingly it seems that the Liberal administration was caught entirely off guard with this situation and perhaps had no coherent foreign policy or position with regards to China in the first place, whereas the Chinese most definitely had a “Canada policy” ready for such occasions.
Throughout this affair, China has been extremely calculated and very careful in its engagement with us. Each message the Chinese have sent to the Canadians has been carefully vetted for an intended effect, whereas Canadian engagement has been haphazard and bungled from the very beginning, or a policy of “fits and starts” as Mulroney calls it.
Now, without a foreign policy, without an administration capable of handling the situation, what are Canadians to do except look for a new government to take over?
Canada no longer has the option to not engage with China. The old placid and neutral relationship is over and China will continue knocking at our door either directly or indirectly to get what it wants from us.
From what little that we know about Conservative leader Andrew Scheer’s foreign policy, it is at least one which approaches with new rules of engagement.
Among the things Scheer has called for is Canada’s exit from the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and taking the Chinese in front of the World Trade Organization.
Most recently, Scheer has called on the Prime Minister to level further retaliatory sanctions against the country and to impose tariffs on Chinese imports.
Of course, with everything we’ve seen from the Conservatives, McCallum is correct in suggesting that a new government would not play nice with China like the Liberals are, but to suggest that we should frame the situation based on what’s ideal and best for our opponents is utterly reprehensible and irresponsible.
Furthermore, the Chinese are most likely aware of this fact and they don’t need a former ambassador to stick his nose where it doesn’t belong. The inherent danger in this is even further amplified with the fact that the election is right around the corner.
In one sense, McCallum’s comments could be seen as an open invitation for the Chinese to meddle in the electoral politics of our country. If the Chinese, with their no-holds-barred approach are intent on being afforded the opportunity to deal with somebody favourable to their interests, they might not stop short in interfering in our October election.
The very fact that McCallum, a former Liberal minister himself has viewed this entire situation through a partisan lens, should make every Canadian concerned about the hands steering the ship in this battle with China.
Can the Liberals not for once set aside partisanship for the interest of the entire nation and most importantly for the well-being and safety of two Canadian citizens who are so dearly missed at home?
Ottawa Police have confirmed the discovery of a massive gun collection inside a Heron Gate home, ensuring the public that there is no threat to public safety.
A community member called police after he had heard about the guns in August, which prompted police into visiting the home, where police discovered the firearms, according to Ottawa Matters.
Police found more than 850 guns inside the man’s home, all stored safely and legally.
Police were then faced with the daunting task of ensuring each of them was legal, and never used in a crime.
The gun stash filled five cargo vans and took more than two months for police to catalogue, to which police discovered that none of the rifles, handguns, machine guns, or ammunition were used to commit a crime, and all of them were legally owned.
Yves-François Blanchet has said that he will not do anything to alleviate western Canada’s frustration. Speaking to reporters, Bloc head Blanchet said that he would not lift a finger to “create an oil state in western Canada.”
These remarks came after Blanchet’s meeting with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in Ottawa today. Trudeau has been meeting with the leaders of the federal parties to prepare for parliament reopening on Dec. 5. After this meeting, Blanchet stated that he will support Trudeau’s minority government in emission-reducing initiatives, however, he will fight the Liberals on the TMX pipeline.
The Bloc’s intent to halt the pipeline will not cause Trudeau trouble in controlling the majority of the House.
Blanchet also indicated to reporters that he did not expect the throne speech to get in the way of Quebec’s secularism bill. Bill 21, the deeply controversial bill that stops public employees from wearing religious symbols, has created tension between English and French Canada.
Over the previous week, Trudeau has been meeting with provincial leaders, as well as Andrew Scheer, in an attempt to placate the increasing sentiment of alienation in western Canada. Blanchet’s most recent comment will only likely further this rift.
Comments made on an episode of CTV’s The Social have received heavy online backlash following comments made by one of their correspondents regarding Don Cherry’s firing.
Amid Don Cherry’s refusal to back down following controversial poppy comments which led to the end of his historic broadcasting career, former Maclean’s magazine editor Jessica Allen decided to attack not just Don Cherry, but rather the entire “altar of hockey” which Canada worships, going on to say that the “white boy” hockey players could have used their parents’ money to instead, travel the world.
“I’m told he’s a Canadian icon, and he’s a symbol of the great sport of hockey, which is the sport that unites us across this country, and that narrative is the one that strikes a nerve with me, because I don’t worship at the altar of hockey, I never have,” said Allen.
“Maybe it’s because of where I grew up, and going to a couple different universities. In my mind, in my experience, who does. They all tended to be white boys, who weren’t very nice, they weren’t very thoughtful they were often bullies, their parents were able to afford to spend $5000 a year on minor hockey. You could do other things than spend time in an arena, you could go on a trip and learn about the world. See other things. The world is a big place, maybe get outside of that bubble.”
Outrage quickly ensued, as many called the comments racist and hypocritical, especially in light of Cherry’s comments which many felt carried no racial context. Some even started using the hashtag #FireJessAllen as a way to get their point across, reaching the top of trending by late Wednesday afternoon.
In response to the heavy criticism, Jessica defended herself via Tweet.
” I never said every white boy, just the ones whose unsavoury behaviour, which didn’t feel very Canadian, I witnessed. Because of this, I am guilty of having conflicted feelings about hockey being so closely linked to our national identity,” said Allen.
Canada, of course, has a history with hockey that dates back nearly to the country’s inception, with the Candian Museum of History even hosting a hockey exhibition in 2017 to celebrate various historical aspects of the sport.
CTV has not yet responded to TPM’s request for comment.
Jessica Yaniv, a transwoman who rose to infamy after she took a number of immigrant, racialized at-home salon workers to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal (BCHRT) for declining to provide services to her male genitalia, applied for her appeal to be heard by a new Tribunal member. She claimed bias against Devyn Cousineau, according to the 5-page document released today by the BCHRT. The appeal was declined.
Cousineau, who has a background in anti-poverty and human rights law and holds a law degree from the University of Victoria, stated she did not feel Yaniv’s claims that she had been biased in her decision were accurate. According to the document, Yaniv requested the appeal decision be made by a different member on the basis that Cousineau had been pressured and “harassed by members of the public via Twitter” to rule in favour of the salon workers.
“It is my ethical and legal obligation as a member of this Tribunal to decide cases based on the evidence before me and not based on public sentiment,” Couseineau wrote in response to the assertion.
In a recent comment given to The Post Millennial, Yaniv stated that the Tribunal ruling had been a “total misunderstanding” full of “inaccurate information.” In the BCHRT appeal document, nine areas of complaint are listed where Yaniv asserts the Tribunal was “wrong”.
These areas, including that Yaniv targeted certain ethnic groups, declined her services because of her scrotum, and that she manufactured the conditions of her complaints–deliberately attempting to provoke situations where she could claim she was being discriminated against–were listed by the BCHRT as findings of fact.
Findings of Fact
Yaniv allegedly also claimed the appeal was necessary as the decision negated to consider transgender women who required hair removal for “surgery.” Cousineau writes that this “was not an issue raised at any time in [Yaniv’s] complaints.”
One of the most striking points of the document was Yaniv’s claim to be unable to pay the improper conduct costs awarded by the BCHRT to the salon workers. These awards were $2,000 each to three of the four women represented by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms.
Citing “anti-trans harassment and attacks” Yaniv sought a reduction of costs. This was also declined by the BCHRT, with Cousineau concluding that if Yaniv wants to challenge the final decision, she must do so in court.