National
Canada Recognizes Palestine, Allows Taiwan to Be Sidelined: A Tale of Two Standards in Ottawa’s Foreign Policy
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.
Trish Wood
Based on our Criminal Code — the answer is yes!
There is little doubt in my mind that what occurred at Universal Ostrich Farms represents a violation of our Criminal Code. This is not hyperbole for clicks — but rather a conclusion based on years as a science writer and judicial reporter.
The idea of code violations really took hold for me yesterday when I read a note posted by a follower from a Canadian veterinarian who is outraged over the cruelty and bad science that underpin this ugly chapter in our history.
But first: There are reports from the ostrich farm that there were two rounds of shooting. One at night, in the dark and another in the morning. If true, this suggests a horror. That some birds weren’t killed instantly. Did some lay dying overnight and “finished off” in daylight? Help me understand how this could even happen? Why were some of the corpses beheaded – which is an unapproved method of killing. Were some found alive after the snipers left and beheaded by CFIA staff?
It’s been reported, but not verified, that roughly 1000 rounds (bullets) were fired to kill between 300 and 350 birds. Simple math says — three shots each, give or take. But we know it wouldn’t have worked out that way. Some would have died instantly and others would have been shot repeatedly — perhaps fighting and writhing until the end. This outcome should have been predicted. We need to see the plan. What instructions were the shooters given and by whom?
This “culling” requires a criminal prosecution and I do hope that someone visits a local lawyer about how to push a Crown for charges. There will be government recordings and they should be made public. I suspect this event went badly off the rails.
Because they were firing at night, in order to prevent media from attaining the gruesome truth, it’s likely some of the marksmen missed their targets even with portable lighting and scopes. That kill shot might have been the head — which is quite small and always moving. The body is less likely an instant kill but an easier target.
We must demand both the criminal, animal cruelty investigation and a public inquiry, under oath to determine how CFIA argues this was necessary. I do hope the veterinary science schools will step up — especially Guelph which is considered one of the best in the world.
Below is the criminal code on animal cruelty.
 |
After an international conference on Avian Flu — a Swedish vet and academic wrote a paper on acceptable killing methods. Shooting birds is listed under “Less Acceptable”. Here is the link.
 |
CFIA’s own handbook says killing by shooting should only be used as a last resort. From a CTV story.
The manual says gunshots should be considered “as a last resort” for euthanasia, while breaking a bird’s neck is also appropriate in some situations, and is listed among methods “when dealing with larger birds such as emus and ostriches.”
It’s difficult to know what actually happened during the actual killing but accounts of the infamous 1932 Emu War in Australia suggest the birds would have been very aware they were about to die. We can understand better the bird’s experience of it by looking at that case given the similarities between these species.
The military was deployed with machine guns to cull emus that had been ruining local farm crops. History reports that the emus won the battle because they were using strategy and tactics to stay alive including posting lookouts. From Britanica, link here.
“It soon became clear that one emu in each group served as a lookout to warn the others, giving them time to escape. Meredith stated publicly that the emus could “face machine guns with the invulnerability of tanks.” Such statements made military action against the emus increasingly unpopular, with opponents arguing that such treatment of emus was inhumane.”
These are intelligent creatures with a will to live and to protect themselves.
Emus proved difficult to kill during the Emu War for a combination of reasons related to their natural resilience, speed, unpredictable behaviour, and the unsuitability of the military’s tactics and equipment.
This is another Jenga pull in our country’s downfall at the hands of robotic bureaucrats and “scientists” who long ago parked their humanity in service of groupthink and politics.
Why didn’t CFIA take advantage of offers to keep the birds alive by moving them to the United States? The same reason the Liberal government invoked violence and the Emergencies Act against peaceful protestors even though there was a deal being struck with the city and Convoy leaders wanted to talk.
It is the flex. The kind used around the world by tyrants to keep uppity citizens frightened and docile — which Canada most certainly is these days.
We are a signatory to a treaty with the animal equivalent of the WHO – called the World Organization for Animal Health, headquartered in Paris. This is to protect our poultry producers and their markets.
It is this international body that governs how CFIA behaves. And it rules with the same kind of fear mongering propaganda that the human version does. A good idea — badly executed and designed to save industry at any cost. Culling sick animals is sometimes necessary. But that’s not what happened at the ostrich farm.
Stay critical.
#truthovertribe
Trish Wood is Critical is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Business
CBC cashes in on Carney as the news industry playing field tilts further in its favour, crippling the competition
“Private” sector will find it more difficult to compete. Plus! Outrage over manipulation of Trump speech and the common error of burying balance
These are happy days at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
With the threat of a “defund the CBC” Conservative government fading ever faster in its rearview mirror, the nation’s publicly-funded commercial news and entertainment corporation (aka public broadcaster) is poised to take an even larger share of the market thanks to Prime Minister Mark Carney’s first budget.
Please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber to The Rewrite.
Your encouragement is appreciated.
Sure, tens of thousands of public sector employees may be about to lose their jobs, services face cutbacks and the feds might be rewriting collective bargaining rules in their favour. But as we learned Nov. 4, the CBC will – as promised in last spring’s election – get a $150 million top up to the $1.4 billion Parliament already allocates to it. There’s every chance that means it will be an even more aggressive competitor in the news market for viewers, listeners, readers and advertisers. One in three working journalists in the country already work for CBC/Radio Canada. If an 11 percent hike in funding is reflected in newsroom job growth, that number could move closer to 37 per cent.
Federal funding for “private sector” news organizations has remained flat (with the exception of a $12 million boost to a fund introduced as Covid relief). That means the news industry playing field has been tilted even more in the CBC’s favour, making it harder for outlets that are not the CBC to compete or even survive. There will be less opportunity for news innovators and increased private sector job losses will lead to demands for larger subsidies from industry lobby groups such as News Media Canada and the Canadian Association of Broadcasters. Good news for the CBC means bad news for others. This is either a really bad mistake by Carney or, making the CBC even more dominant as a news source (it has the most popular domestic website) is part of his plan.
Further brightening the outlook for journos at the Mother Corp was the news from CBC President Marie-Philippe Bouchard that there’s no need to investigate antisemitism within its ranks and, while its relationship with rural and western Canadians could be better, it’s unlikely the status quo will be disrupted. Editor in Chief Brodie Fenlon confirmed that conclusion by testifying before a Senate committee that the CBC’s newsrooms are the least biased he’s ever worked in.
Yup, life at the Mother Corp’s looking rosier than ever.
Perhaps as an unintended metaphor for CBC’s growth at private media’s expense, Postmedia’s Brian Passifiume illustrated his relative poverty by jocularly complaining about the lack of a free lunch for those within the budget lockup.
Time was when journos would refuse a free lunch from a subject of their coverage. Now they complain publicly about not getting one.
 |
Speaking of the budget, a couple of items caught the eye.
One was the jaw-dropping Tweet by the Hill Times’ Stu Benson noting how journalists were partying post-budget at Ottawa’s trendy Metro Brasserie with government MPs and bigwigs. It, accompanied by photos, stated:
“Hundreds of politicos, journalists, and libatious Liberals joined Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne for a post-budget victory lap at the @MetroBrasserie_ on Nov. 4 at @EarnscliffeCda X @politicoottawa’s”
In response, Twitter sage Norman Spector shared Benson’s post and wrote:
“How it works in Ottawa: Politicos, journalists and Liberals at a post-budget victory lap – a shindig co-sponsored by a lobbying firm.”
And media wonder why so many no longer have faith in them?
The other item involved what is termed an “advance” story posted by the CBC. The problem wasn’t that the story failed to contain all the key elements and expected perspectives. It did. The problem was that none of those were introduced at all until the 10th paragraph and you have to go another 28 paragraphs or so before the Conservatives, Bloc and NDP are even mentioned, making the piece read like a government news release. This is a common error in newsrooms where staff should know by now that most people consume news by reading a headline and – give or take – the top six paragraphs before moving on.
So, unless reporters introduce balance within the first three paragraphs, most people will be unaware that alternative views exist.
CBC is hardly alone in making this error, although its dominance in the market enhances its impact.
Please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber to The Rewrite.
Your encouragement is appreciated.
During my spells in Ottawa – briefly within the Parliamentary Press Gallery and longer at the CRTC – I was struck by how little so many reporters working there know about how government and its institutions actually work.
Most, in my recollection, cover only the drama, intrigue and theatre of politics. For too many, the daily routine consists of scanning news releases, phoning their contacts and watching Question Period on CPAC before venturing (maybe) across Wellington Street (is it still called that?) for a scrum or two.
What most don’t bother with at all are some of the most important aspects of the machinery of government such as the work of committees, the regulations that follow passage of legislation or, as Blacklock’s Reporter Publisher Holly Doan pointed out last week, the estimates that follow a budget.
These are important matters and the lack of coverage by subsidized media leaves the public ill-informed. For instance, as the Liberals move to buy off opposition MPs to form a majority government people did not vote for, they will also be able to claim control over committees.
So, as the nation morphs inexorably into a permanent one-party state, the absence of coverage in these areas will be increasingly evident. If you want to be a fully informed citizen, find a news outlet that covers these important matters and subscribe.
A little more than a year ago, people were being fired at CTV for manipulating quotes from Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre.
That practice delivered an even more devastating impact on public trust in journalism when it was revealed that the BBC program Panorama had blended two phrases from US President Donald Trump. As The Standard reported:
“In a clip from a Panorama programme, broadcast before the election, Trump appears to tell supporters: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol…and I’ll be there with you. And we fight, we fight like hell.
“But the words were taken from different sections of his speech, nearly an hour apart. In the original footage, his language is more restrained: “We’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women,” adding his supporters will march “peacefully and patriotically” to make their voices heard.”
Opposition MPs are demanding an inquiry. In this clip, GB News takes no prisoners. Reports Saturday indicate the chair of the BBC would be officially apologizing.
Michael Geist is not a journalist. He’s a law professor and internet expert. And his coverage of the budget – in a Substack note – was a fabulous example of the importance of a free and open internet as a source of valuable information about important matters overlooked by mainstream media. He said:
“Canadian government departments are big believers that AI will be the source of reducing expenses. Finance, Justice, CRTC, Fisheries, CRA, ESDC all cite new efficiencies from AI to explain how they will meet the 15% spending reduction target in the budget.”
And, as I wrote in The Line a couple of months back:
“Two years ago, the Liberals were hoping to claim they’d saved legacy media from Big Tech. All they really did was stake it for AI to devour.”
But you won’t read that in legacy media. Just here. Tell your friends.
Oh and one last treat for those of you who enjoy a snappy front page:
 |
Readers will notice a new DONATE button has been added. Please consider making use of it and help us save journalism from bad journalism.
(Peter Menzies is a commentator and consultant on media, Macdonald-Laurier Institute Senior Fellow, a past publisher of the Calgary Herald, a former vice chair of the CRTC and a National Newspaper Award winner.)
Please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber to The Rewrite.
Your encouragement is appreciated.
Public Execution of Anti-Cartel Mayor in Michoacán Prompts U.S. Offer to Intervene Against Cartels
The era of Climate Change Alarmism is over
A Justice System That Hates Punishment Can’t Protect the Innocent
B.C. government laid groundwork for turning private property into Aboriginal land
Nigeria better stop killing Christians — or America’s coming “guns-a-blazing”
Trump’s Tariffs Have Not Caused Economy To Collapse
Pro-freedom group warns Liberal bill could secretly cut off Canadians’ internet access
-
Business1 day agoOttawa should stop using misleading debt measure to justify deficits
-
Energy1 day agoThawing the freeze on oil and gas development in Treaty 8 territory
-
International24 hours agoBBC uses ‘neutrality’ excuse to rebuke newscaster who objected to gender ideology
-
National2 days agoNew Canadian bill would punish those who deny residential indigenous schools deaths claims
-
International1 day agoLarge US naval presence in Caribbean reveals increased interest in western security
-
Agriculture1 day agoThe Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s Bloodlust: Worshipping Policies While Ignoring Science
-
armed forces2 days agoThe Liberal Government Just Betrayed Veterans. Again. Right Before Remembrance Day.
-
Health2 days agoRFK Jr. urges global health authorities to remove mercury from all vaccines