Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

National

Canada Recognizes Palestine, Allows Taiwan to Be Sidelined: A Tale of Two Standards in Ottawa’s Foreign Policy

Published

12 mins ago

7 minute read

Carney’s recognition of Palestine contrasts with silence on Taiwan’s inclusion at ICAO, exposing a foreign policy shaped by diaspora politics and Beijing’s leverage.

Taipei’s top diplomats in Ottawa — backed by two Parliamentarians — warned that Taiwan’s exclusion from the United Nations’ International Civil Aviation Organization undermines global safety standards and rewards Beijing’s political bullying, despite the island’s role as a major aviation hub.

The appeal, ironically, came a day after Prime Minister Mark Carney announced Ottawa’s recognition, ahead of a UN assembly, of an ill-defined Palestinian state — a designation made without defined borders, a recognized government, or resolution of Hamas’s ongoing hostage crisis. Conservative MP Michelle Lantsman equated the move to succumbing to pressure from Islamic groups in Canada and rewarding Hamas terrorism. By contrast, in Ottawa today, lawmakers Michael Cooper and Judy Sgro raised Taiwan’s case for inclusion in ICAO, the United Nations’ aviation safety body, from a government with arguably far stronger credentials for statehood than Palestine.

Last week in the House of Commons, ahead of the ICAO Assembly underway in Montreal this week, Cooper accused the UN agency of “bending to Beijing’s bullying,” warning that shutting out the world’s eleventh-largest aviation market “creates a dangerous gap that undermines global aviation safety.” Sgro, a Liberal MP and co-chair of the Canada–Taiwan Parliamentary Friendship Group, added that Taiwan manages the busy and strategically vital Taipei Flight Information Region, and its absence “contradicts the spirit of the Chicago Convention” that created ICAO.

In a press gallery speech today, Taiwan’s ambassador to Canada, Harry Tseng, warned that Beijing’s escalating military drills and unilateral aviation maneuvers are turning skies over the Taiwan Strait into a global security hazard. He recalled August 2022, when China launched 11 ballistic missiles around Taiwan, four of them flying directly over the island, and declared seven temporary danger zones that disrupted more than a dozen international routes. In just four days, international flights through the Taipei Flight Information Region plunged by 90 percent, Tseng said, forcing hundreds of planes to reroute at enormous cost. “We must not allow political maneuvers to take precedence over aviation safety,” he told reporters.

Tseng pointed to an ongoing pattern of unilateral Chinese actions, from activating new flight paths without consultation to staging large-scale military drills that, he said, “deliberately disregard” Taiwan’s recognized aviation authority.

Conservative MP Michael Cooper called the United Nations exclusion of Taiwan from ICAO “nothing short of reckless,” making “a mockery of ICAO’s mission.”

Cooper said that as the host country for the ICAO assembly, Canada carries an added responsibility to support Taiwan, and he criticized Prime Minister Mark Carney’s silence, arguing Carney is “placating Beijing’s dictatorship.”

“It’s disappointing that we have seen silence on the part of the government, and I think over the past number of years, we have seen a policy of the Government of Canada that has too often bended to Beijing,” Cooper said.

The exclusion at ICAO mirrors Taiwan’s experience at the World Health Organization, where its government argued that being locked out during the early days of COVID-19 led to significant harms. WHO officials relied on faulty reports from Beijing and delayed confirmation of the outbreak’s origins in Wuhan, leaving Taipei cut off from critical information despite its own early warnings. In both cases, Taiwan’s absence reflects structural limits imposed by the United Nations after 1971, when the General Assembly transferred China’s seat to the People’s Republic of China. As a UN specialized agency headquartered in Montreal, ICAO fell in line with UN membership rules, giving Beijing enduring leverage to bar Taiwan.

There have been moments of exception. In 2013, ICAO Council President Roberto Kobeh González extended a personal invitation to Taiwan’s Civil Aeronautics Administration to attend the 38th Assembly as “Chinese Taipei,” a modest opening welcomed by the United States and European Union. But that door closed in 2016, after the election of President Tsai Ing-wen. Without Beijing’s approval, Taiwan was denied entry to the 39th Assembly, a reversal widely understood as punishment for Taipei’s refusal to endorse the so-called 1992 Consensus on “One China.”

The tensions grew in 2020, when ICAO officials blocked North American analysts and congressional staffers on Twitter who mentioned Taiwan’s exclusion. The episode, dubbed “Twittergate,” drew condemnation from the U.S. State Department and became a symbol of Beijing’s influence over UN agencies.

The pattern continues today. In Washington last week, Senate Commerce Chair Ted Cruz called on ICAO to recognize Taiwan at the Assembly, warning that failure to do so “emboldens China and harms” global standards.

The stakes in Ottawa are immediate: ICAO delegates are meeting just down the highway in Montreal, with China seated as a full member while Taiwan remains excluded.

After making his remarks, Ambassador Tseng told The Bureau that his office will travel to Montreal, where it plans to meet with representatives from about 20 nations outside ICAO’s official proceedings to press Taipei’s case for inclusion.

G7 statements in recent years have consistently endorsed Taiwan’s “meaningful participation” in international institutions, from WHO to ICAO. Yet Ottawa’s decision to hastily recognize Palestine while offering only tepid support for Taiwan’s international status exposes a troubling inconsistency in Canadian foreign policy — driven, plausibly, by foreign pressure and the calculus of diaspora vote banks.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
National / 12 mins ago

Canada Recognizes Palestine, Allows Taiwan to Be Sidelined: A Tale of Two Standards in Ottawa’s Foreign Policy

Crime / 12 hours ago

Charlie Kirk’s Widow Says She Forgives Her Husband’s Assassin During Memorial

Censorship Industrial Complex / 12 hours ago

Media’s Psyop Against Climate Scientists

Business

Canadian gov’t spending on DEI programs exceeds $1 billion since 2016

Published on September 21, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Some departments failed to provide clear descriptions of how the taxpayer funds were used. For example, Prairies Economic Development Canada spent $190.1 million on projects related to diversity, equity and inclusion ventures but could not provide details.

Federal diversity, equity and inclusion programs have cost Canadian taxpayers more than $1 billion since 2016.

According to information published September 18 by Blacklock’s Reporter, diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) government grants have totaled $1.049 billion since 2016, including grants for “cultural vegetables.”

A $25 million grant, one of the largest individual grants, was given to the Canadian Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce to “strengthen Canada’s entrepreneurship ecosystem to be more accessible to LGBTQ small businesses.”

The government payouts were distributed among 29 departments, ranging from military to agricultural projects.

The Department of Agriculture spent $90,649 for “harvesting, processing and storage of cultural vegetables to strengthen food security in equity-deserving Black communities” in Ontario.

Some departments failed to provide clear descriptions of how the taxpayer funds were used. For example, Prairies Economic Development Canada spent $190.1 million on projects related to diversity, equity and inclusion ventures but could not provide details.

“PrairiesCan conducted a search in our grants and contributions management system using the keywords ‘equity,’ ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion,’” the Inquiry said. “Certain projects were included where diversity, equity and inclusion were referenced but may not be the main focus of the project.”

DEI projects are presented as efforts by organizations to promote fair treatment, representation, and access to opportunities for people from varied backgrounds. However, the projects are often little more than LGBT propaganda campaigns funded by the Liberal government.

As LifeSiteNews reported, the University of British Columbia Vancouver campus posted an opening for a research chair position that essentially barred non-homosexual white men from applying for the job.

Canadians have repeatedly appealed to Liberals to end pro-LGBT DEI mandates, particularly within the education system.

As LifeSiteNews previously reported, in June 2024, 40 Canadian university professors appealed to the Liberal government to abandon DEI initiatives in universities, arguing they are both ineffective and harmful to Canadians.

Continue Reading

Agriculture

Ottawa’s EV Gamble Just Cost Canola Farmers Billions

Published on September 21, 2025

By

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Conrad Eder

Ottawa’s EV subsidies have backfired. Western Canada’s canola farmers are the latest victims of misguided government industrial policy

Economic policy is more like gardening than engineering. You can shovel all the money you want into trying to grow coconuts in a Canadian winter, but you’ll achieve far better results—and feed many more people—by planting potatoes in the spring and letting nature run its course.

For Canada, that means embracing policies that create fertile ground for all businesses to compete, innovate, and serve consumers. Ottawa, unfortunately, prefers to play God with the weather. What began as economic tinkering has triggered a cascade of interventions now devastating Canada’s canola industry.

Rather than letting the market determine Canada’s strengths, federal and provincial politicians decided they knew better, wagering $52.5 billion to lure EV and battery manufacturers to Canada. Massive public subsidies were placed on a handful of firms and technologies.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer delivered a sobering assessment of this boondoggle: it could take decades for taxpayers to break even on these subsidies—and only if nothing goes sideways.

Well, you know what they say about best-laid plans.

After committing billions, Ottawa faced an awkward truth: Chinese manufacturers were eating our lunch, offering EVs at lower prices, thanks in part to their own subsidies. Instead of reversing course, Ottawa hit the panic button and slapped a 100 per cent tariff on Chinese EVs.

Let’s be clear: this wasn’t about national security or consumer protection. It was about salvaging one of the largest industrial bets in Canadian history.

Yes, some sectors require targeted oversight to protect privacy and safety. EVs aren’t one of them. Their risks can be managed with targeted regulations and technical safeguards. But the tariffs do real damage by blocking affordable EVs and denying Canadians the right to judge for themselves.

Predictably, China didn’t take the tariffs lying down. In March, Beijing slapped 100 per cent duties on Canadian canola oil. In August, it hit canola seed with 75.8 per cent tariffs, effectively shutting out Canadian farmers from a $4.9-billion market.

Ninety-nine per cent of canola fields are in Western Canada. Canola is Canada’s top crop export, supporting tens of thousands of Prairie jobs and generating over $43 billion annually.

Another trade war, another lose-lose. Canadians pay more for EVs. Chinese consumers pay more for food.

And now, predictably, agricultural lobbyists are seeking Ottawa’s help. The government—having started the fire—has responded with $370 million in biofuel incentives and expanded financial support for canola producers. More subsidies. More distortion. Another Band-Aid for another self-inflicted wound.

Ironically, Canada’s farm sector already receives substantial government support. Now it’s receiving even more just to survive Ottawa’s protection of a separate subsidized industry. That’s the trouble with industrial policy: helping one sector often means hurting another. And taxpayers get the privilege of funding both.

There’s a better way forward: it doesn’t involve doubling down on mistakes. The solution is to stop the engineering and let the economy breathe. Lower taxes. Fewer regulations. Neutral infrastructure investment. These create the conditions for businesses to rise or fall on merit. That’s how innovation flourishes: through competition, not cabinet-level favouritism.

It’s not hard to follow the dominoes. EV subsidies triggered Chinese tariffs. Tariffs triggered canola retaliation. Canola retaliation now triggers demands for bailouts.

One attempt to pick winners has manufactured a long list of losers.

Had Ottawa stuck with free-trade principles, Canadians could’ve had more affordable EVs, taxpayers would’ve saved billions, and canola farmers would still have access to a vital export market.

Instead, we get a chain reaction of policy “fixes,” each one compensating for the damage done by the last—each one digging the hole deeper.

When governments try to engineer economic outcomes, citizens foot the bill. The real lesson? Governments are great at creating problems. Markets are better at solving them.

If Canada wants a prosperous economic future, it must stop betting the farm on political hunches and let competitive markets do the cultivating.

Conrad Eder is a policy analyst at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Continue Reading

Trending

X