The government’s attitude toward its spy agency poses problems for the future security of Canada
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau appears as a witness at the Public Inquiry Into Foreign Interference in Federal Electoral Processes and Democratic Institutions in Ottawa on Wednesday, April 10, 2024. Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press.
I first Googled “How do I become a Canadian spy” in July 2005. I was living in London, U.K. working in finance when a bus and several subway stations had just been blown up by domestic homegrown terrorists only a few blocks from my office. Fifty-two people were killed and 770 were injured. Just four years earlier when two passenger planes hit the Twin Towers murdering nearly 3,000, I was a senior at Brown University in Rhode Island. This was followed by terrorists killing 191 civilians on a Madrid train. For those who don’t remember this time period, it was the age of terrorism. It was an age where not only did you know what the threat was, but it felt very real and dangerously close.
So, I signed up to be an intelligence officer with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and joined the Canadian Forces Infantry Reserves with the Queens Own Rifles of Canada. I became part of a generation of young, idealistic Canadians who, as one of my former colleagues put it, “ran away and joined the circus.” We wanted to serve Canada and really weren’t all that sure what that meant or how to do it. If I’m honest, my first Google search was actually “Does Canada have spies?”
I would go on to spend nearly a decade serving in both organizations, leaving in 2016. Looking back, I am extremely proud of where I worked, what we accomplished, and the important work my former colleagues continue to do to keep Canada and Canadians safe. I was able to share some of this in my memoir, but most of it will always be a secret.
When I wore my army uniform in public, people used to walk up to me and thank me for my service. But my military career was mostly confined to parade nights at the armoury and the occasional weekend exercise in rural Ontario. It was while wearing my intelligence officer uniform (a generic button-down shirt and navy blue blazer) that I got to do the cool spy stuff that no one would ever know about or thank me publicly for.
Working long hours, dealing with stressful cases, and then lying to everyone I knew about what I was up to was a challenge. Occasionally you’d get a rah-rah speech from CSIS management saying things like, “The powers that be [the politicians in power] really appreciate everything you’re doing. They were so impressed with the information you were able to collect and you are making a real difference in the safety of our country.” It was a thankless job in many ways, but we did it because we believed we were making a difference.
Today, I am not sure how any executive at CSIS will be able to stand up and give that speech with a straight face after watching Prime Minister Trudeau and senior officials at the foreign interference inquiry hearings say under oath, repeatedly, that they don’t often read CSIS briefs. That they take our intelligence with a huge grain of salt. That they don’t think our findings are worth following up on.
“There is a certain degree of—I would not say skepticism—but of critical thought that must be applied to any information collected by our security and intelligence services,” explained Prime Minister Trudeau.
The reason this is a major problem is not the hurt feelings of former spies, but what it reveals about the government’s attitude towards its spy agency and perhaps the wider public’s views on security. It’s an attitude that poses problems for the future security of Canada. There has always been a naiveté and complacency about the threats we face in an increasingly dangerous world. Canadians just don’t think much about our security. There is a general attitude of: “What does anyone want with us?” The lack of pressure the public is applying to government to fund our military in recent years may be a good illustration of this.
The reality is that our national security is not an accident. It is the result of thousands of men and women in our intelligence community, military, law enforcement, and corporate security, getting up each day and going to work. The safety we enjoy is on some level proof that the system is working. This also means our security is not guaranteed to continue. I believe Canada has been able to get by on the sacrifices of the few men and women who do these jobs, and that our political leadership, despite a lack of political pressure, has taken generally this threat seriously. Unfortunately, I fear that as the threats we face become more nuanced, those we entrust with our safety are increasingly unwilling or not sufficiently empowered to protect us.
The CSIS mandate is to collect, analyse, and advise government on threats to the security of Canada. There are four main threats: espionage and sabotage, foreign interference, terrorism, and subversion. It was my job to be a “collector” of information. As an intelligence officer for a domestic security service in the post-9/11 days, I was in the coffee and conversation business. I would often knock on doors 20 minutes from where I grew up, asking people for information and help with my national security investigation.
Back then when we tackled enemies like the 2006 Toronto 18 terrorists and the 2013 Via Rail derailment plot, it was a pretty straightforward job. We didn’t want to see the domestic attacks we saw around the world happen here at home. They were tangible threats we could see and easily explain at those doorsteps.
Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino, left, and Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), David Vigneault, right, wait to appear before the Special Committee on Canada-People’s Republic of China Relationship (CACN) on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Monday, Feb. 6, 2023. Spencer Colby/The Canadian Press.
The threats CSIS is being asked to monitor today are far more nuanced and less visible. My colleagues and I used to worry about bombs going off in capital cities, but now an act of terrorism could be someone hacking into a water treatment plant to change chemical levels. In my day, foreign interference was honey traps and the attempted blackmail of elected officials. Now, we are uncovering potential state-sponsored misinformation campaigns during elections. Espionage and sabotage are rampant in the theft of IP and the hacking of companies. These threats are far less tangible and often difficult to attribute to a single source. Often we’re left with no easy answers to mitigate the risk.
Meanwhile, during this period when threats are evolving, our security apparatus is left to contend with a political leadership that is hesitant to listen to our warnings and seemingly content with avoiding having to deal with them.
Recently the government announced legislation to counter the threat of foreign interference, including expanding CSIS powers and a foreign agent registry. While many will be applauding these actions, I can’t help but think back to how this all began and what it took to finally get government to act. The public inquiry was the result of political pressure caused by the leaking of sensitive information to the media on the growing threats and their continued inaction on foreign interference. Leaking is wrong. It’s also not done lightly. It is a symptom of an intelligence service that felt its reports and advice were not being dealt with appropriately. I hope this is a wake-up call because it’s a terrible way to make national security policy.
I worry about what all of this means for Canadian security. What has this complacency meant for the next generation of army reservists and intelligence officer recruits?
In 2024, what is prompting their Google searches before submitting a job application to CSIS? And what are they going to encounter if they get there? In my time working for the intelligence service, it was a growing organization capitalizing off of a strong mandate, an army of bright-eyed recruits, and a risk-tolerant executive. Today, I fear that, at a time when their job is more difficult than ever, we may be losing our will to support those who are working to keep us safe. This is a dangerous direction to be going in.
Andrew Kirsch served as an intelligence officer with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) for 10 years. His memoir “I Was Never Here: My True Canadian Spy Story of Coffees, Code Names, and Covert Operations” was a national bestseller. He is currently CEO of Kirsch Group, a security risk consulting firm based in Toronto. He is a public speaker on issues of cyber, physical and national security. He also ran for the Ontario PC Party in the 2018 Ontario provincial election in the riding of Toronto-St Paul’s.
D/C: We have known for years about foreign interference. So sad that the government has done absolutely nothing to stop it, for purely political reasons.
Commissioner Justice Marie-Josée Hogue speaks about her report from the Public Inquiry Into Foreign Interference in Federal Electoral Processes and Democratic Institutions in Ottawa on May 3.Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press
Foreign interference in 2019 and 2021 undermined the right of Canadian voters to have an electoral process “free from coercion or covert influence” and may have affected results in a small number of ridings, a public inquiry has concluded in the first of two reports.
While foreign meddling did not alter the overall outcome of the two elections, Commissioner Marie-Josée Hogue, a justice of the Quebec Court of Appeal, issued a call to action Friday for the government to vigorously enact measures to tackle this “malign” threat to Canadian democracy.
She identified China as the “most persistent and sophisticated foreign interference threat to Canada” at the moment.
The acts of foreign interference that occurred, or are suspected to have occurred, “are a stain on our electoral process and impacted the process leading up to the actual vote,” she wrote.
Justice Hogue warned in her 193-page report that foreign interference undermines trust in the electoral system and discourages diaspora communities from participating in Canadian democracy.
“The government must re-establish this trust by informing the public of the threat of foreign interference, and by taking real concrete steps to detect, deter and counter it,” she wrote.
Inquiry Commissioner Marie-Josée Hogue warned in her initial report that foreign interference taints the electoral process, undermines trust in the electoral system and discourages diaspora communities from participating in Canadian democracy. Justice Hogue is now moving on to conduct a second phase of hearings on foreign interference in the fall.
She agreed with the views of all the participants at the inquiry, including the Conservative Party, that foreign interference did not sway the outcome of the last two elections in which the Liberals won the most seats. “The fact that there is agreement from the members of the Conservatives that this did not occur reflects the seriousness with which Parliamentarians in these proceedings have approached the commission’s work.”
The inquiry went further than a May, 2023, report by former governor-general David Johnston, who discounted assertions from the Conservative Party that Chinese state interference affected the vote in certain ridings in 2021. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau bowed to pressure to set up an independent commission of inquiry in September after Mr. Johnston lost the confidence of all the opposition parties in the House and resigned as special rapporteur.
In her report, Justice Hogue said the eight-month inquiry, much of which was held in-camera, found “ample evidence that some foreign states engaged in foreign interference in the past two Canadian elections.”
“It is possible that results in a small number of ridings were affected, but this cannot be said with certainty,” the report said.
Justice Hogue singled out the Vancouver-area riding of Steveston-Richmond East where Conservative MP Kenny Chiu lost the 2021 election as one example where concerns remain about the possible impact of interference by the People’s Republic of China.
Foreign interference in 2019 and 2021 undermined the right of Canadian voters to have an electoral process “free from coercion or covert influence” and may have affected results in a small number of ridings, a public inquiry has concluded in the first of two reports.
While foreign meddling did not alter the overall outcome of the two elections, Commissioner Marie-Josée Hogue, a justice of the Quebec Court of Appeal, issued a call to action Friday for the government to vigorously enact measures to tackle this “malign” threat to Canadian democracy.
She identified China as the “most persistent and sophisticated foreign interference threat to Canada” at the moment.
The acts of foreign interference that occurred, or are suspected to have occurred, “are a stain on our electoral process and impacted the process leading up to the actual vote,” she wrote.
Justice Hogue warned in her 193-page report that foreign interference undermines trust in the electoral system and discourages diaspora communities from participating in Canadian democracy.
“The government must re-establish this trust by informing the public of the threat of foreign interference, and by taking real concrete steps to detect, deter and counter it,” she wrote.
Inquiry Commissioner Marie-Josée Hogue warned in her initial report that foreign interference taints the electoral process, undermines trust in the electoral system and discourages diaspora communities from participating in Canadian democracy. Justice Hogue is now moving on to conduct a second phase of hearings on foreign interference in the fall.
She agreed with the views of all the participants at the inquiry, including the Conservative Party, that foreign interference did not sway the outcome of the last two elections in which the Liberals won the most seats. “The fact that there is agreement from the members of the Conservatives that this did not occur reflects the seriousness with which Parliamentarians in these proceedings have approached the commission’s work.”
The inquiry went further than a May, 2023, report by former governor-general David Johnston, who discounted assertions from the Conservative Party that Chinese state interference affected the vote in certain ridings in 2021. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau bowed to pressure to set up an independent commission of inquiry in September after Mr. Johnston lost the confidence of all the opposition parties in the House and resigned as special rapporteur.
In her report, Justice Hogue said the eight-month inquiry, much of which was held in-camera, found “ample evidence that some foreign states engaged in foreign interference in the past two Canadian elections.”
“It is possible that results in a small number of ridings were affected, but this cannot be said with certainty,” the report said.
Justice Hogue singled out the Vancouver-area riding of Steveston-Richmond East where Conservative MP Kenny Chiu lost the 2021 election as one example where concerns remain about the possible impact of interference by the People’s Republic of China.
Dominic LeBlanc, the Public Safety Minister, says foreign agent registry legislation is ‘coming soon,’ along with other measures to combat foreign interference from hostile states.Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press
MPs from all parties in the House of Commons have joined a coalition of diaspora community groups in calling on the federal government to immediately table legislation setting up a foreign agent influence registry.
Coalition spokesperson Gloria Fung told a news conference Tuesday on Parliament Hill that diaspora groups have been waiting since 2021 for Ottawa to act.
“We are tired of empty promises. We need action now,” Ms. Fung said.
MPs from the Liberal, Conservative, NDP, Bloc Québécois and Green parties joined the community groups to voice their support for a registry for anyone working to influence governments, elections or citizens on behalf of a foreign power.
Failure to register could result in fines or jail sentences for foreign agents.
“There has to be a cost associated for any country that interferes with our democratic processes or our elections,” Liberal MP Ali Ehsassi said. Conservative MP Tom Kmiec added: “If you take money from a foreign government, you should have to register in Canada. It’s time to do it.”
The government has been working since last year on a package of reforms to deal with foreign interference. It includes a foreign agent registry and changes to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, the Security of Information Act and the Criminal Code to make foreign interference an offence.
Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc told reporters Tuesday that foreign agent registry legislation is “coming soon,” as are other measures to combat foreign interference from hostile states.
“This is part of our ongoing effort to strengthen legislation with respect to foreign interference,” he said. “So I’m confident that the foreign influence registry will be part of a broader effort to strengthen legislation with respect to countering foreign interference.”
Bloc MP René Villemure said his party will table its own foreign agent legislation before June if the government does not get its act together.
The United States and Australia have already set up foreign agent registries, and Britain has a law on the books that will come into force later this year.
The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation used the 86-year-old Foreign Agents Registration Act last year to arrest Chinese agents suspected of trying to intimidate Chinese citizens in the U.S. – an activity that also appears to be taking place in Canada in so-called “police stations” operated by Beijing.
Previously, the FBI used the FARA law to pursue investigations into Russian agents suspected of involvement in election meddling and influence peddling in Washington after the 2016 U.S. election.
NDP MP Jenny Kwan, who has been targeted by Beijing for her criticism of China’s human-rights abuses, said the government needs to get the foreign agent registry up and running before the election expected next year.
The proposed registry has been opposed by some within the Chinese-Canadian community. Independent Senator Yuen Pau Woo, appointed to the upper house by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in 2016, has argued that a foreign-influence registry could do more harm than good and could infringe on Canadians’ Charter rights.
Ms. Kwan accused Mr. Woo of promoting disinformation.
“This registry will protect everyone. It doesn’t matter what community you come from,” Ms. Kwan said. “We want every single Canadian to be protected. Without this registry that means those vulnerable communities could be targeted.”
Marcus Kolga, president of the Central and Eastern European Council in Canada, said we already have laws requiring lobbyists to register when they try to influence the government, so “shouldn’t we demand transparency from those who advance the aims of foreign regimes, specifically those like Russia, China, Iran and others.”
The registry will shine a light in the shadows where former diplomats, politicians, government officials and academics are paid to work on behalf of authoritarian regimes, Mr. Kolga said.
By now, Chinese President Xi Jinping’s ambition to remake the world is undeniable. He wants to dissolve Washington’s network of alliances and purge what he dismisses as “Western” values from international bodies. He wants to knock the U.S. dollar off its pedestal and eliminate Washington’s chokehold over critical technology. In his new multipolar order, global institutions and norms will be underpinned by Chinese notions of common security and economic development, Chinese values of state-determined political rights, and Chinese technology. China will no longer have to fight for leadership. Its centrality will be guaranteed.
To hear Xi tell it, this world is within reach. At the Central Conference on Work Relating to Foreign Affairs last December, he boasted that Beijing was (in the words of a government press release) a “confident, self-reliant, open and inclusive major country,” one that had created the world’s “largest platform for international cooperation” and led the way in “reforming the international system.” He asserted that his conception for the global order—a “community with a shared future for mankind”—had evolved from a “Chinese initiative” to an “international consensus,” to be realized through the implementation of four Chinese programs: the Belt and Road Initiative, the Global Development Initiative, the Global Security Initiative, and the Global Civilization Initiative.
Outside China, such brash, self-congratulatory proclamations are generally disregarded or dismissed—including by American officials, who have tended to discount the appeal of Beijing’s strategy. It is easy to see why: a large number of China’s plans appear to be failing or backfiring. Many of China’s neighbors are drawing closer to Washington, and its economy is faltering. The country’s confrontational “Wolf Warrior” style of diplomacy may have pleased Xi, but it won China few friends overseas. And polls indicate that Beijing is broadly unpopular worldwide: A 2023 Pew Research Center study, for example, surveyed attitudes toward China and the United States in 24 countries on six continents. It found that only 28 percent of respondents had a favorable opinion of Beijing, and just 23 percent said China contributes to global peace. Nearly 60 percent of respondents, by contrast, had a positive view of the United States, and 61 percent said Washington contributes to peace and stability.
But Xi’s vision is far more formidable than it seems. China’s proposals would give power to the many countries that have been frustrated and sidelined by the present order, but it would still afford the states Washington currently favors with valuable international roles. Beijing’s initiatives are backed by a comprehensive, well-resourced, and disciplined operational strategy—one that features outreach to governments and people in seemingly every country. These techniques have gained Beijing newfound support, particularly in some multilateral organizations and from nondemocracies. China is succeeding in making itself an agent of welcome change while portraying the United States as the defender of a status quo that few particularly like.
Rather than dismissing Beijing’s playbook, U.S. policymakers should learn from it. To win what will be a long-term competition, the United States must seize the mantle of change that China has claimed. Washington needs to articulate and push forward its own vision for a transformed international system and the U.S. role within that system—one that is inclusive of countries at different economic levels and with different political systems. Like China, the United States needs to invest deeply in the technological, military, and diplomatic foundations that enable both security at home and leadership abroad. Yet as the country commits to that competition, U.S. policymakers must understand that near-term stabilization of the bilateral relationship advances rather than hinders ultimate U.S. objectives. They should build on last year’s summit between President Joe Biden and Xi, curtailing inflammatory anti-Chinese rhetoric and creating a more functional diplomatic relationship. That way, the United States can focus on the more important task: winning the long-term game.
I CAN SEE CLEARLY NOW
Beijing’s playbook begins with a well-defined vision of a transformed world order. The Chinese government wants a system built not just on multipolarity but also on absolute sovereignty; security rooted in international consensus and the UN Charter; state-determined human rights based on each country’s circumstances; development as the “master key” to all solutions; the end of U.S. dollar dominance; and a pledge to leave no country and no one behind.
This vision, in Beijing’s telling, stands in stark contrast to the system the United States supports. In a 2023 report, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs claimed Washington was “clinging to the Cold War mentality” and “piecing together small blocs through its alliance system” to “create division in the region, stoke confrontation and undermine peace.” The United States, the report continued, interferes “in the internal affairs of other countries,” uses the dollar’s status as the international reserve currency to coerce “other countries into serving America’s political and economic strategy,” and seeks to “deter other countries’ scientific, technological and economic development.”
Finally, the ministry argued, the United States advances “cultural hegemony.” The “real weapons in U.S. cultural expansion,” it declared, were the “production lines of Mattel Company and Coca-Cola.”
Beijing claims that its vision, by contrast, advances the interests of the majority of the world’s people. China is center stage, but every country, including the United States, has a role to play. At the 2024 Munich Security Conference in February, for example, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said that China and the United States are responsible for global strategic stability. China and Russia, meanwhile, represent the exploration of a new model for major-country relations.
China and the European Union are the world’s two major markets and civilizations and should resist establishing blocs based on ideology. And China, as what Wang called the “largest developing country,” promotes solidarity and cooperation with the global South to increase its representation in global affairs.
China’s vision is designed to be compelling for nearly all countries. Those that are not democracies will have their choices validated. Those that are democracies but not major powers will gain a greater voice in the international system and a bigger share of the benefits of globalization. Even the major democratic powers can reflect on whether the current system is adequate for meeting today’s challenges or whether China has something better to offer. Observers in the United States and elsewhere may roll their eyes at the grandiose phrasing, but they do so at their peril: dissatisfaction with the current international order has created a global audience more amenable to China’s proposals than might have existed not long ago.
D/C: Certainly China has been buying huge amounts of gold to get off their dependency on the dollar, But also they need to get American’s a little on side to aid their exports, as their economy is a problem right now!
CNN: Choose between stability and ‘downward spiral,’ China tells Blinken during Beijing trip
Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi’s trip to Pakistan gains significance against the backdrop of heightened tensions in the Middle East as Iran and Israel continue to exchange blows
Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi (l) and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif (r) had a “vibrant discussion” on advancing bilateral relations, said IslamabadImage: Uncredited/Prime Minister Office/AP/dpa/picture allianc
Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi arrived in Pakistan‘s capital Islamabad on Monday for a three-day official visit, as the two Muslim-majority neighbors seek to mend ties after unprecedented tit-for-tat military strikes earlier this year.
“The Iranian president is accompanied by his spouse and a high-level delegation,” Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement, adding that the group also included the foreign minister, other cabinet members and senior officials.
Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s office said both leaders had a “vibrant discussion” on advancing bilateral relations.
They also “agreed on the necessity for joint efforts by both countries to combat terrorism,” it added.
Before leaving Tehran, Raisi had said the “discussions with the government of Pakistan will be on the border issues between the two countries.”Pakistan strikes alleged militant hideouts in Iran
A challenging border security situation
Pakistan, a Sunni-majority country, and Iran , predominantly Shiite, have a history of rocky relations.
Iran launched airstrikes against suspected insurgents in Pakistani territory in January. Tehran said it targeted the Sunni militant group Jaish al-Adl, which it holds responsible for several attacks on civilians and soldiers in Iran.
Pakistan retaliated with an attack on an Iranian village near the city of Saravan, saying that it was targeting fighters of the separatist Balochistan Liberation Front (BLF).
Both Jaish al-Adl and the BLF are militant separatist groups fighting for the independence of Balochistan, a mineral-rich region that spans the Iran-Pakistan border. The BLF does not have religious inclinations.
The Pakistani province of Balochistan forms the largest part of the region, followed by the provinces of Sistan and Balochistan on the Iranian side.
The region is sparsely populated by some 9 million Balochs, who are organized into tribes rather than feeling that they belong to a state.
Efforts for autonomy or independence have been violently suppressed on both sides of the border for decades.
In recent years, Balochs have become increasingly vocal, accusing both governments of systematic discrimination and plundering their region.
Several groups of militant insurgents have carried out attacks on both sides of the border, afterwards retreating into the neighboring country across the 900-kilometer-long (559-mile-long) border, which is difficult to navigate and control.
As part of the rapprochement, they agreed to fight terrorism within their respective territories and establish a system of consultations at the level of the foreign ministers to oversee progress across sectors.
Ahsan Raza, a Lahore-based political analyst, believes that Raisi’s trip is meant to repair bilateral relations. The visit also gains significance, he said, against the backdrop of heightened tensions in the Middle East after Tehran recently launched a retaliatory strike against Israel which involved over 300 drones and missiles.
Even though Raisi’s trip to Pakistan had been planned before the recent escalation of tension between Iran and Israel, observers in Pakistan say Iran is now under increased pressure to bolster ties with countries in the region as the West tightens sanctions on Tehran.
Muhammad Akram, a former Pakistani senator, said Tehran is seeking Islamabad’s moral and diplomatic backing amid the tense geopolitical landscape.
Iran has good ties with China, Russia and some Central Asian states, Akram pointed out, noting that Tehran also wants Pakistan to join this list of friendly nations.
Talat A. Wizarat, an international relations expert in Karachi, echoes this view.
“Iran would definitely want Pakistan to support Tehran politically and diplomatically. If that is not possible, then the Iranians would want Pakistan to avoid being part of any anti-Iranian move or plan,” he told DW.
Pakistan reliant on US, Saudi help
Islamabad, however, has historically been closer to Tehran’s rivals, Saudi Arabia and the United States.
In the current situation, it will be tough for Islamabad to extend any support to Iran, said Naeem Khalid Lodhi, a former defense secretary.
Pakistan is heavily reliant on US-dominated international financial institutions for assistance, Lodhi told DW.
“That’s why Pakistan won’t be able to support Iran in the current tense Middle Eastern situation, for fear of infuriating Washington, which has helped Pakistan secure loans from the institutions.”
Can Pakistan build the Iran gas pipeline?
Raisi has said the visit is also aimed at boosting overall trade between Iran and Pakistan, which currently stands at around $2.5 billion (€2.35 billion) a year.
One of the countries’ high-profile joint projects is a stalled gas supply deal , signed in 2010, in which the neighbors agreed to build a pipeline from Iran’s South Fars gas field to Pakistan’s southern provinces of Balochistan and Sindh.
Despite Pakistan’s need for gas, Islamabad has yet to begin construction of its part of the pipeline, citing fears over US sanctions.
Iran is now threatening Pakistan with legal action if it fails to build the Pakistani section of the pipeline.
Faced with the possibility of contract breach penalties running into the billions of dollars, Islamabad recently gave the go-ahead for construction of an 80-kilometer (50-mile) stretch of the pipeline.
But following the Pakistani announcement, the US said it did not support the project. Washington also warned about the risk of sanctions when doing business with Tehran.
(Caption for photo at top of the post: “Wei Wei (on left) meets with Justin Trudeau and Chinese United Front official Bin Zhang (far right [actually first from far right]) in 2016, before Bin Zhang donates $1 million to the Pierre Elliot Trudeau Foundation.”)
They’re everywhere, it seems. Excerpts from a major article based on comprehensive digging by Global News’ excellent investigative reporter Sam Cooper (tweets here), note the numerous photos and montages at the original. Almost a, er, rogues’ gallery:
B.C. real estate developer Yongtao Chen stepped onto the podium in a Vancouver hotel ballroom and enthusiastically waved a red flag to a loud round of applause.
He had just accepted a new role as chairman of the Canadian Alliance of Chinese Associations (CACA) and was displaying their banner at an August 2018 political gala in Vancouver.
The alliance is a pro-Beijing umbrella group that says it represents about 100 Chinese community associations across Canada and works with Chinese state officials to build mutually beneficial ties between the two nations.
But Canadian intelligence sources suspect the organization is part of a network directed from Beijing to undertake both legal and illegal tasks abroad.
Some 400 people were in the crowd at the gala, decked out in tailored suits and evening gowns. The guests included China’s top consular officials in B.C. and Canadian politicians from all levels of government.
Chen pledged to build ties between community groups in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal and “unite entrepreneurs” under the alliance’s banner.
One of the entrepreneurs in the room was Yongtao Chen’s business partner, a Toronto real estate tycoon named Wei Wei.
But two years later, Wei is facing multiple criminal charges in relation to allegations that he was running illegal gambling operations out of his massive marble-floored 53-room mansion in Markham, Ont.
And according to law enforcement sources, the business and political ties of some CACA leaders like Wei and Yongtao Chen are of increasing concern for Canada’s national security as RCMP and Canadian Security Intelligence Service investigators probe networks they believe may involve the hidden hand of the Chinese state and organized crime.
…
The connections of CACA leaders with alleged illegal casino operators including Jin and Wei appear to be in keeping with the practices utilized by Beijing’s so-called United Front, intelligence sources said. And the fact that alleged criminals and leaders from CACA frequently attend meetings endorsed by China’s official United Front Work Department supports this allegation, the sources say.
…experts such as David Mulroney, Canada’s former ambassador to China, say the Party uses organized crime in United Front networks to infiltrate Western governments.
“There is a very tight, incestuous relationship between organized crime in China and within diaspora communities, and the United Front,” Mulroney said in an interview. “Co-opting criminal networks is one of the Party’s preferred tools for the infiltration of target organizations and communities for foreign interference operations.”
And a number of Canadian intelligence sources interviewed by Global News say it is suspected Beijing mobilizes leaders in business and politics in the United Front, while clandestinely using organized crime agents for illegal tasks including human smuggling and money laundering…
According to current and former Canadian intelligence officers, China has been very effective at using real estate and casino tycoons and their political donations to facilitate meetings between their government representatives and Canadian officials. One of the sources told Global News that Canada has failed to counter this increasing threat of ‘elite capture [see post noted below].’
In 2016 and 2017, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau participated in at least a handful of fundraising events in the Toronto and Vancouver regions that featured wealthy entrepreneurs such as Wei. A media report in the National Post also revealed that Trudeau met twice with Wei, including at a Toronto-area Liberal fundraiser in 2016 [see this 2016 post: “With Serious Chicom Links: “Influential Chinese-Canadians paying to attend private fundraisers with Trudeau”“].
Also with Wei at these meetings was a Chinese billionaire and member of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), Bin Zhang, who later made a $1-million donation to the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, the Globe and Mail previously reported.
A former CSIS intelligence officer told Global News that he was concerned about donations to the Trudeau foundation from a Chinese tycoon…
Wowsers. much more at the full piece, do have a read. Broad and deep doesn’t even begin to cover the foreign influence/foreign interference activities here of the PRC. Related earlier posts:
Trudeau testified about whether recent Canadian elections may have been subject to interference from China, Russia, India or other foreign actors. Earlier, Karina Gould, Bill Blair and Dominic LeBlanc testified
Globe staff Published 11 hours ago Updated 1 hour ago
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau testifies before the commission on foreign interference in elections and democratic institutions in Ottawa on April 10, 2024.ASHLEY FRASER/Getty Images
Foreign interference has dominated the headlines since The Globe first reported details of China’s sophisticated strategy to disrupt Canada’s democracy in February, 2023. The long-awaited public inquiry on the issue launched in September, 2023.
Public hearings have already heard testimonies from diaspora groups, election officials and politicians targeted by China.
Conservative Party affected by pro-Kremlin narrative, Trudeau tells inquiry
Mr. Trudeau tells the inquiry that Pierre Poilievre’s Conservative Party has fallen prey to pro-Kremlin narratives and that explained why they voted against legislation underpinning the updated Canada-Ukraine free-trade deal..
Trudeau believes reporting about phone conversation was false
Mr. Trudeau is also asked about former special rapporteur David Johnston’s conclusion that the reporting on an alleged 2021 conversation between Han Dong and Chinese consul-general Han Tao was false. Mr. Trudeau concurs he believes the reporting was false.
Mr. Dong’s lawyer asks Mr. Trudeau whether the PMO discussed how to address that reporting. Mr. Trudeau says that is why they engaged Mr. Johnston to investigate.
Trudeau voices doubt about CSIS account of Han Dong phone call about Two Michaels
Mr. Trudeau is asked about MP Han Dong’s 2021 call with then-Toronto consul-general Han Tao about the incarceration of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor. The Prime Minister voices doubt about CSIS’s account of this, saying “there is a lot of uncertainty” around the spy agency’s account of the intercepted conversation.
Trudeau says suspicion of irregularities in process not enough to overturn result
Mr. Trudeau is asked about Johnston-report comments on the 2019 Liberal nomination race in Don Valley North that noted “well-grounded suspicion that the irregularities were tied to the PRC consulate in Toronto.”
Story continues below advertisement
Mr. Trudeau replies that by itself, that is “not itself enough to overturn a democratic event.”
Trudeau, chief of staff differ in intelligence briefing remarks
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau takes part in public hearings at the foreign interference inquiry in Ottawa on April 10, 2024.Blair Gable/Reuters
Does Mr. Trudeau read intelligence briefs? Contrast what the Prime Minister told the inquiry today and what chief of staff Katie Telford told MPs nearly one year ago.
Last year, Ms. Telford told MPs on April 14, “of course the Prime Minister reads any documents he receives.”
Mr. Trudeau said today he mostly relies on oral briefings instead of the documents he receives. “He reads them when he can. If he is not able to read the document, he trusts that someone else, specifically the National Security and Intelligence Advisor (”NSIA”), will tell him if there is something important that he needs to know.”
Trudeau is asked about complaints of defeated Conservative candidate
Mr. Trudeau is asked about defeated Conservative MP Kenny Chiu – a target of disinformation – complaining about Ottawa’s perceived lack of action about his case.
“It’s as if you were drowning while they watched and the best they could do is to let you know you were drowning,” Mr. Chiu told the inquiry recently.
The Prime Minister says when it comes to foreign interference, foreign diplomats might boast to their superiors about something that occurred in Canada but that doesn’t mean they were responsible for what transpired. “Bragging is not doing.”(He spoke in vague terms before relaying this adage.)
Intelligence briefings can be compared to conversations, Trudeau tells inquiry
Mr. Trudeau tells the inquiry that intelligence briefings given to him are more like conversations rather than officials reading off all their talking points.
Trudeau: Notes don’t always mean I was told everything
Mr. Trudeau is presented with September, 2022, briefing notes that caution “Canada has been slower than our Five Eyes allies to respond to the foreign interference threat with legislation and other initiatives…” He says notes don’t always mean he is told everything.
Trudeau: ‘No impediments prohibiting foreign nationals from voting’ in nomination contests
Also in the pre-hearing interview: Mr. Trudeau “observed that there are in fact no impediments prohibiting foreign nationals from voting in the [Liberal] nominations process: he explained that this is an intentional decision, to encourage wide participation in nomination races.”
Trudeau said ahead of hearing that turnover in adviser position has had no bearing on national security
An interesting question in the pre-hearing interview with Mr. Trudeau released today: “PM Trudeau indicated that he [did] not believe the high turnover rate in the NSIA [national security and intelligence adviser] position has affected his ability to stay informed on important intelligence issues.”
How Trudeau received information on CSIS and the Don Valley North race
The Prime Minister is recounting how aide Jeremy Broadhurst told him in September, 2019, that CSIS was concerned China might have mobilized buses of students to vote for Han Dong.
Trudeau asked about 2019 Don Valley North riding nomination race
Mr. Trudeau recalls how he first learned from an aide of alleged irregularities in the Liberal nomination race for Don Valley North in 2019: “Concerns that Chinese officials” were “developing plans to possibly engage in interference in the nomination contest…”
“The only way to guarantee to make sure that I receive the necessary information is to give me an in-person briefing, or over a secure line if necessary, on any issue or priority issue.” – Mr. Trudeau on how he consumes intelligence and how it’s incumbent on advisers to spell it out.
“She is the person I turn to get the answers I need,” Mr. Trudeau tells the inquiry of his national-security adviser. It appears that a key message from the Prime Minister today is: It’s up to my advisers to tell me what is important rather than written briefs.
Trudeau’s pre-hearing remarks on intelligence briefings
A pre-hearing interview with Mr. Trudeau that was just released dealt with the subject of intelligence briefings:
“He reads them when he can. If he is not able to read the document, he trusts that someone else, specifically the National Security and Intelligence Advisor, will tell him if there is something important that he needs to know.”
Trudeau explains concerns about Russian disinformation
The Prime Minister is recounting his early concern about Russian disinformation and how to respond to it, citing an account of how French officials were once forced to go public with warnings about how a breaking story was fake news spread by Moscow.
Trudeau outlines national security situation at start of mandate
Mr. Trudeau tells inquiry that when he first took power, he wanted parliamentarians to have more oversight over national security and so he created NSICOP, a committee of MPs and senators.
(NSICOP, though, is not a committee of Parliament.)
Issue of alleged illegal Chinese government police stations is raised
Mr. LeBlanc is asked about alleged illegal Chinese government police stations operating in Montreal, but the inquiry’s counsel interrupts to question how this relates to scope of the commission’s mandate.
Mr. Mendicino, public safety minister in early 2023, will not testify
It’s interesting that Justice Hogue called Karina Gould to testify, even though she is no longer the minister responsible for democratic institutions. (She is currently Government House Leader.)
But Justice Hogue didn’t call Marco Mendicino, who is no longer public safety minister but was the first minister really tasked with getting a handle on foreign interference. Mr. Mendicino was dropped from cabinet in July, 2023.
Mr. LeBlanc was briefed on campaigns targeting Kenny Chiu and Erin O’Toole
Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs Dominic LeBlanc appears as a witness during the Public Inquiry Into Foreign Interference in Ottawa, April 10, 2024.Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press
Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc told the foreign-interference inquiry he was given briefings in February and May, 2023, during which he was made aware of “disinformation campaigns targeting Mr. Kenny Chiu and Mr. Erin O’Toole,” according to a pre-hearing interview made public today.
He added he does not recall CSIS officials “ascribing an outcome or an impact to those campaigns.”
Mr. LeBlanc was named Public Safety Minister in July, 2023.
Mr. Chiu, a former Conservative MP, previously testified at the commission that he was defeated in the election because of a China-sponsored disinformation campaign.
Mr. Blair did not see substantial evidence of Russian influence on election
Former public safety minister Bill Blair tells the inquiry he did not see “substantial evidence of Russian efforts to influence our elections through disinformation” in the 2019 and 2021 federal elections.
But he said he did see evidence of Russian efforts to influence public opinion outside elections.
As is habitual at the Hogue inquiry, there is a major delay before documents entered into exhibit at proceedings are provided to journalists. It’s been 15 minutes since Mr. Blair began testifying, and we still can’t read his pre-hearing interview.
Mr. Blair was briefed on Chinese meddling in Don Valley North Liberal nomination race
Former public safety minister Bill Blair tells foreign interference inquiry that after the 2019 election he was briefed on alleged Chinese meddling in the Don Valley North Liberal nomination race.
In his pre-hearing interview, also tabled today, he said he was not concerned because it was not firmly substantiated and the intelligence “did not suggest” that candidate Han Dong was aware of the irregularities or that the actual election in the riding had been compromised.
Karina Gould, who testified earlier, was not briefed on the same incident.
Defence Minister Bill Blair is now testifying at the Hogue inquiry on foreign interference because of his past service as public safety minister. Canada’s spy agency, CSIS, reports to the minister of public safety.
Ms. Gould disputes civil servants are not impartial
Ms. Gould is asked whether a federal election threats monitor would be more independent if it was staffed by people who could not be removed from office, instead of “at pleasure appointees,” such as senior public servants.
She disputes the suggestion that civil servants are not impartial.
It’s pretty clear that in 2019 the government thought the biggest threat to elections would come from Russia.
But as we have read at least twice in inquiry witness interviews, the government has since been informed that “Russia did not have a lot of interest in Canada’s elections.”
It’s worth considering to what extent Ottawa erected lines of defence around the premise that the main interference threat would come from Russia. Then it came from China, according to CSIS.
Ms. Gould was informed of low-level interference activities
Ms. Gould said in the pre-hearing interview that, after the 2019 election, she was informed “CSIS had observed low-level foreign interference activities by China, similar to what had been seen in the past.”
Ms. Gould said in pre-interview that threshold for information sharing should be high
In the pre-hearing interview, just made public, Ms. Gould told the inquiry that “the threshold for informing the public of a threat to an election should be (and was designed to be) high. The moment a public announcement is made, not only could the election be put in question, but Canada’s democracy as a whole could also be put in question.”
In the lead-up to the 2019 federal election, Ms. Gould received security briefings by heads of agencies within the security and intelligence community on the cyber- and non-cyberthreat landscape. She would go to a SCIF (sensitive compartmented information facility) on Communications Security Establishment premises to receive this information.
She was not briefed on the Don Valley North Liberal nomination race allegations “during or after the election … neither was she made aware that secret cleared Liberal Party representatives were briefed in late September 2019 about the allegations of foreign interference by China in the Don Valley North nomination contest.”
Ms. Gould says there was a plan to protect Canada’s democracy before 2019
Liberal member of Parliament Karina Gould appears as a witness at the Public Inquiry Into Foreign Interference in Ottawa on Wednesday, April 10, 2024.Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press
Ms. Gould tells the inquiry that the initial “plan to protect Canada’s democracy” was developed after attempts by Russia to interfere with democratic elections around the world.
The idea was to address situations like the “Obama dilemma,” in which then-President Barack Obama became aware that Russia was interfering in the 2016 U.S. presidential election but felt unable to publicly intervene because doing so would be viewed as a partisan act of interfering in the electoral process.
Some details come from a pre-hearing summary made public as she testifies.
Karina Gould, who was minister of democratic institutions from Feb. 1, 2017, until Nov. 20, 2019, is up at the Hogue inquiry now. She is currently Government House Leader.
A guide to foreign interference and China’s suspected influence in Canada
The public inquiry into foreign interference in Canadian elections, led by Quebec Court of Appeal Justice Marie-Josée Hogue, began public hearings in January. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had resisted repeated calls for months, including three votes in the House of Commons, to set up a foreign-interference inquiry.
What is foreign interference and why is it important? What have we learned from CSIS documents, national-security sources and politicians about Chinese meddling in Canadian affairs? Here’s what you need to know
– Globe Staff
9:00 a.m.
A look at what happened in week one of the foreign-interference inquiry
During the first week of Canada’s inquiry into foreign interference, Justice Hogue heard testimony from Canadian diaspora groups, election officials and politicians targeted by China.
During the week of April 1-5, witnesses included Chief Electoral Officer Stéphane Perrault, Commissioner of Canada Elections Caroline Simard, former Conservative leader Erin O’Toole, Conservative foreign affairs critic Michael Chong, CSIS Director David Vigneault and MP Han Dong.
A timeline of China’s alleged interference in recent Canadian elections
In February of 2023, The Globe and Mail reported details of China’s sophisticated strategy to disrupt Canada’s democracy in the 2021 federal election campaign, based on secret and top-secret CSIS documents.
D/C: Here’s my take on the testimony. By denying knowledge of evil doings when there are Liberal seats to gain, they did not want to be aware of what was going on, why stop a good thing,! Just blame it on poor old CSIS and the RCMP!Maybe it is time to stop busloads of students voting for candidates (of all parties) if they cannot prove citizenship ( elections too!) with very heavy penalties for those who do!,
Good reporting from CTV with Bob Fife:CBC is not even allowing comments.
Islamabad said the comments undermine peace and impede the prospect of constructive engagement.
Defence Minister Singh’s comments came after media reports saying the India had killed about 20 people in Pakistan since 2020 [File: Adnan Abidi/Reuters]
Published On 6 Apr 20246 Apr 2024
Pakistan has denounced “provocative remarks” made by Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, who said in an interview that India would enter Pakistan to kill anyone who escapes over its border after trying to carry out attacks.
Singh’s comments on Friday came after the Guardian newspaper published a report stating that India had killed about 20 people in Pakistan since 2020 as part of a broader plan to target “terrorists residing on foreign soil”
“India’s assertion of its preparedness to extra-judicially execute more civilians, arbitrarily pronounced as ‘terrorists’, inside Pakistan constitutes a clear admission of culpability,” Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement on Saturday.
The ministry also said that such “myopic and irresponsible behaviour” not only undermines regional peace but also impedes the prospect of constructive engagement in the long term.
“Pakistan stands resolute in its intent and ability to safeguard its sovereignty against any act of aggression,” the ministry added.
During his interview with local broadcaster CNN News18 on Friday, the Indian defence chief was asked about the Guardian report, and responded: “If they run away to Pakistan, we will enter Pakistan to kill them.”
“India always wants to maintain good relations with its neighbouring countries … But if anyone shows India the angry eyes again and again, comes to India and tries to promote terrorist activities, we will not spare them,” Singh added.
Tense relations
Pakistani security officials, speaking to Al Jazeera on condition of anonymity, acknowledged at least six killings took place in 2023, and two in the year before.
They said they believed these killings were carried out by a “hostile intelligence agency” – code for India’s external spy agency, the Research and Analysis Wing – and were investigating.
Relations between India and Pakistan have worsened since a 2019 suicide bombing of an Indian military convoy in Kashmir was traced to Pakistan-based fighters and prompted New Delhi to carry out an air raid on what it said was a fighter base in Pakistan.
Pakistan said earlier this year it had credible evidence linking Indian agents to the killing of two of its citizens on its soil. India said it was “false and malicious” propaganda.
Canada and the United States last year accused India of killing or attempting to kill people in those countries.
Canada said in September that it was pursuing “credible allegations” linking India to the death of a Sikh separatist leader shot dead in June – claims that India said were “absurd and motivated”.
A top Canadian official said in January that India was cooperating in the matter and bilateral ties were improving.
The US similarly said in November that it had thwarted an Indian plot to kill a Sikh separatist leader and announced charges against a person it said had worked with India to orchestrate the attempted murder.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi has said India will investigate any information it receives on the matter.
The country’s top civil servant asked Facebook to remove a “false and inflammatory” story about Prime Minister Justin Trudeau during the 2019 election campaign, but bureaucrats did not make a similar request of WeChat, which published inflammatory misinformation about Conservative Leader Erin O’Toole and MP Kenny Chiu in the 2021 election, the public inquiry into foreign interference heard Friday.
An interview with Privy Council Office staffer Allan Sutherland – disclosed by the Foreign Interference Commission, which is holding the inquiry – indicates the government agency was worried that the false story about Mr. Trudeau could go viral and “risked threatening the integrity of the election.” Mr. Sutherland said, however, that the misinformation about Conservatives circulating on Chinese-language social-media platform WeChat was viewed differently.
A written summary of the interview tabled at the inquiry Friday showed that officials overseeing election integrity were alarmed about an article in the online Buffalo Chronicle, a site that runs fake stories. It made false allegations in the 2019 election about an affair Mr. Trudeau supposedly had with a student at a private high school where he was teaching in 2000.
Mr. Sutherland, assistant secretary to the cabinet (machinery of government and democratic institutions), who helped set up a special election oversight task force, said Facebook brought the article to his attention.
Erin O’Toole speaks to reporters after appearing as a witness at the Public Inquiry Into Foreign Interference in Federal Electoral Processes and Democratic Institutions in Ottawa on April 3, 2024.Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press
“The content might have gained significant attention were it amplified, and therefore risked threatening the integrity of the election. At the direction of then Clerk of the Privy Council Ian Shugart, Mr. Sutherland asked Facebook to remove the article,” the summary said. “Facebook complied.”
The summary also dealt with questions put to Mr. Sutherland about misinformation circulating on WeChat about Mr. O’Toole and Mr. Chiu during the 2021 election. Articles flagged by the federal election monitoring task force include ones that shared the narrative that Mr. O’Toole “almost wants to break diplomatic relations” with China, as well as Chinese media commentary stating that “Chinese Canadians are scared of the Conservative platform.”
WeChat was not asked to remove the inflammatory allegations against the two Conservatives, Mr. Sutherland said.
He explained that the WeChat misinformation was deemed different than the Buffalo Chronicle article because the fact that “it was written in Mandarin meant that the content would only reach the Chinese diaspora.”
“In addition, the Buffalo Chronicle article presented false and inflammatory information directly targeting the Prime Minister’s character, whereas the WeChat postings discussed substantive policy issues, albeit also in an inflammatory manner,” the summary stated.
In testimony at the inquiry Friday, Mr. Sutherland was asked to explain why Mr. Trudeau was treated differently than his Conservative opponents and whether there was less concern about false information affecting ridings where a large number of Chinese-Canadians resided.
The article about Mr. Trudeau was “highly inflammatory and was seen that it might go viral and become a national event,” Mr. Sutherland explained. “I was simply observing that in the case of WeChat, the ability to go viral on a national scale is different.”
“I do not want to leave you with the impression that it was treated with any less seriousness. I am only observing that they had different qualities.”
The inquiry heard testimony this week that the Security and Intelligence Threats to Elections Task Force, known as SITE and composed of senior civil servants, did not share intelligence with Mr. O’Toole’s party outlining Beijing-directed efforts to spread disinformation against the Conservatives over the party’s hawkish campaign platform against China.
Mr. O’Toole told the inquiry his party was targeted by a deluge of disinformation orchestrated by China and its proxies that led to the defeat of as many as nine candidates in the 2021 election – though he stressed that he does not believe Chinese interference changed the outcome of the vote, which produced a Liberal minority government.
But he said voters in certain ridings were affected by this meddling and that government officials in charge of election integrity knew about it but never issued a warning to the public or the political parties.
Even when his campaign raised the disinformation campaign with SITE, it was played down, Mr. O’Toole said. “Clearly, they knew some of the instances we were reporting were actually occurring, but that was never confirmed to us in the campaign or after.”
A document tabled with the inquiry showed that, in the week before the 2021 election, a unit with the Department of Global Affairs assigned to detect foreign state-sponsored disinformation observed “what may be a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) information operation that aims to discourage Canadians of Chinese heritage from voting for the Conservative Party of Canada.” There is no indication Mr. O’Toole was informed of this.
Mr. O’Toole said he made the seat-projection losses based on Conservative Party modelling that showed his party should have won about 127 seats but ended up with 119. The party lost the vote largely on the issue of vaccine mandates, he said, but foreign interference cost the Conservatives between five and nine seats “where we had large numbers of people not voting.”
He said it was only last year, when The Globe and Mail published articles, based on classified Canadian Security Intelligence Service documents and national-security officials, that he became aware of the extent of Chinese interference in the 2021 campaign.
After The Globe revealed last May that Conservative foreign affairs critic Michael Chong was targeted by China in the 2021 election, CSIS informed Mr. O’Toole and NDP MP Jenny Kwan that they too had been part of the Chinese interference operations.
Earlier in the week, representatives from the Liberal, Conservative and New Democratic parties, who received national-security clearances to be briefed on foreign interference, said the SITE briefings were very general in nature and not particularly useful.
Lyall King, SITE chair during the 2019 and 2021 elections, said the sharing of intelligence was a new process and everyone was trying to figure out what secret information should be shared.
“There is a lot more awareness now of what foreign interference is,” he told the inquiry. “What we would have deemed secret back in 2019 in fact would be much more common knowledge and out in the open now.”
D/C: Moral ethics where art thou?Those with access should read the comments section on this story .. shows the mood of the country.
Mark Collins 3Ds Blog 