LP_468x60
on-the-record-468x60-white

What is Prime Minister Mark Carney’s relationship with China? Opinion and analysis has been varied, ranging from mild concern and bemusement to offensive remarks and conspiratorial thinking. Whatever the relationship entails, one thing seems clear: Carney and the Liberals can’t escape the shadow of the Chinese Communist Party.

This was highlighted during the Paul Chiang controversy.

During a January news conference with Chinese-language media, it was revealed that Chiang, a retired 28-year police veteran and one-term Liberal MP, had disgracefully encouraged Canadians to collect a $183,000 bounty placed on Conservative candidate Joe Tay’s head. The Ming Pao newspaper reported that Chiang said it would be a “great controversy” if Tay, running in a different riding, was elected and “if you can take him to the Chinese Consulate General in Toronto, you can get the million-dollar reward.” It was a disgusting and reprehensible comment by Chiang, who tried to dismiss it as a bad joke.

Carney refused to remove Chiang as a candidate. While claiming to be “deeply offended” by Chiang’s comments, the PM had the audacity to call it a “teachable moment.” It was a phrase straight out of former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s decrepit political playbook. “He’s made his apology,” Carney said. “He’s made it to the public, he’s made it to the individual concerned, he’s made it directly to me, and he’s going to continue with his candidacy. He has my confidence.” The controversy inexplicably continued for another 24 hours until Chiang finally resigned.

One would have thought the Carney Liberals would have found a replacement for Chiang with as clean a record as possible. Then again, maybe not.

Peter Yuen, Toronto’s former deputy chief of police, was selected as the new Liberal candidate in the riding of Markham–Unionville. He found himself in hot water almost immediately. He’s reportedly a “member of a Beijing-friendly lobby organization,” according to the Globe and Mail’s Robert Fife and Steven Chase, “and has given talks at events honouring a Toronto group that advocates for the annexation of Taiwan by China.” Yuen apparently has a “strong relationship with China’s diplomatic mission in Toronto,” and has spoken to the Toronto chapter of the Chinese Freemasons, who have “advocated for what it calls the ‘peaceful reunification of China and Taiwan.’”

How this didn’t raise any red flags (of concern) is anyone’s guess.

Carney isn’t the only member of this Liberal government with, shall we say, a “China problem.” Trudeau had one, too. There was his ludicrous remark as a Liberal MP at a women’s event in 2013, “There’s a level of admiration I actually have for China. Their basic dictatorship is actually allowing them to turn their economy around on a dime.” Trudeau’s China problem got worse when he became PM, including the Two MichaelsMeng Wanzhou affair and still-unresolved allegations of Chinese election interference in the 2019 and 2021 federal elections.

Carney should have studied Trudeau’s repeated failures with China and learned some lessons. He didn’t. The current PM’s stick-handling with this matter has been just as awful as his stance with a hockey stick during a practice session with the Edmonton Oilers.

Long before he entered politics, Carney had established a presence in China.

As Vice-Chair of Brookfield, he engaged in a “fireside chat” with Dominic Barton, then-Canadian Ambassador to China, about the importance of values mentioned in his 2021 book, Values, at the Canada China Business Council’s 43rd AGM and Business Forum in October 2021. National Post columnist Terry Glavin noted on April 4 that Carney “paid several visits to China” while at Brookfield “where he routinely praised Xi Jinping’s leadership and urged the advancement of the Chinese renminbi as a global reserve currency to challenge the U.S. dollar.” Other activities included overseeing a $1 billion investment fund to support the Belt and Road Initiative while he was still Governor of the Bank of England. China’s strategy enabled its banks to gain important access and investment opportunities in over 150 countries and organizations, including the UK’s currency market.

This also stands out when you consider that Carney reportedly secured a $256 million loan last November from the Bank of China for his now-former company, Brookfield Asset Management. This occurred about two months before he jumped into the Liberal leadership race.

Equally interesting? Carney had been an adviser to the Trudeau Liberals since 2020, including as a special adviser and chair of a Liberal Party task force on economic growth last September. Those political appointments overlapped with some of the worst moments of the Chinese election interference controversy in our country. Yet, Carney didn’t think twice (or blink once) about approaching the Bank of China as opposed to non-Chinese banks to secure that loan.

There’s also the revelation from a security task force that an online operation with ties to China’s Communist government was focusing its efforts on Carney. The task force, which includes representatives of Global Affairs, CSIS and the RCMP, had discovered that Youli-Youmian, described by the CBC as “the most popular news account on the social media platform WeChat” and linked “to the Chinese Communist Party’s central political and legal affairs commission,” was attempting to “amplify” Carney’s position on the United States along with his credentials.

It’s highly unlikely that Carney knew about this operation. It should worry him that the Chinese Communists were focusing on his leadership and ideas. Alas, his long-standing relationship with China makes one wonder if he’s at all concerned.

Michael Taube, a longtime newspaper columnist and political commentator, was a speechwriter for former Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


This content is restricted to subscribers

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


This content is restricted to subscribers

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


This content is restricted to subscribers

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


This content is only available to our subscribers!

Become a subscriber today!

Register

Already a subscriber?

Subscriber Login

More than a few Canadians are no doubt happy enough that the House of Commons in Ottawa, “pursuant to Standing Order 28(2)(b),” is off on its annual summer holiday, from late June to mid September.

Whatever else, this will at least turn off one big toxic tap on the “Chinese/foreign influence”  issue in Canadian politics and beyond.

And it does seem that the great majority of the cross-country electorate, in all its various regional configurations, is less interested in this issue than many federal parliamentarians (and others) in Ottawa.

There have also been intimations that the diverse Canadian electorate is home to some especially subtle and nuanced understandings of  Chinese/foreign influence in Canada today. Whatever else again, this certainly shouldn’t be surprising.

To start with, what still calls itself the People’s Republic of China is now and is going to be something very big in the 21st century global village. The shock-and-awesome growth of the Chinese economy since the year 2000 is almost unbelievable but finally quite real.

As Mao Zedong famously said, China “stood up” in 1949, after an agonizingly long period of decadent decline. Around 1999, 50 years later, China started to reach for some economic and other recovery of its earlier high achievement in world history.

Moreover, China today has more than 1.4 billion people. Though India is about to move into first place on this front, China’s population will at least remain the second largest of any country in the world, by a considerable margin.

(The third largest is the United States at some 330 million people, and the fourth is Indonesia with about 275 million.)

At the same time (and more immediately for Canadians), the Government of Canada tells us that : “1.8 million Canadian residents are of Chinese origin, and in 2020, more than 117,000 Chinese students with study permits for six months or more attended Canadian educational institutions. Chinese is Canada’s third most spoken language after English and French.” (Punjabi is fourth.)

What the Government of China is doing outside and inside Canada today clearly bears watching. It operates an essentially authoritarian political system, opposed to the free and democratic politics countries such as Canada are supposed to enjoy.

And then a new and vaguely imperialist China is increasingly involved in many different parts of the world, economically and even more broadly politically or at least culturally.

And then again, closest to the ground, in international trade China is currently selling to Canada some three and a half times more than it is buying from us.

At the same time again, China has made and will no doubt continue to make a vast contribution to some emerging global civilization.

There are similarly growing Chinese dimensions to Canadian culture. We have already had a Governor General of Canada who was born in Hong Kong. And the list of theoretically lesser public offices occupied by “Canadian residents … of Chinese origin” is already long and growing.

With the House in Ottawa away for the summer, it may take somewhat longer for federal politicians to altogether resolve what is finally going to be done about the Chinese/foreign influence issue in the Canadian democracy.

Whatever it is, however, should somehow appreciate that the political, economic, and diverse human relationships involved are entirely too serious and important to be used as fodder for toxic partisan political debate.

It may be almost pointless to try to say such things in the cruel real world of politics almost everywhere today!

And if no one in current Canadian political life exactly matches such figures as Lauren Boebert, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Donald Trump in the USA, we have more than our own fair share of toxic partisan politicians.

Even so,  as the summer of 2023 begins  it still seems somehow appropriate to argue that, in dealing with “Chinese/foreign influence,” what we need now in Canada is something completely different — and at least a little more high-minded.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


This content is only available to our subscribers!

Become a subscriber today!

Register

Already a subscriber?

Subscriber Login

This content is only available to our subscribers!

Become a subscriber today!

Register

Already a subscriber?

Subscriber Login

NDP leader Jagmeet Singh introduced a motion in the House of Commons on Tuesday that called for the Liberal government to replace David Johnston as special rapporteur dealing with election interference. He won’t withdraw from the three-year confidence-and-supply agreement with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau if the latter won’t heed his call, however.

If you’re shaking your head in utter confusion right now, I wouldn’t blame you.

What’s the point of calling for a non-binding motion that has no real meaning, and no specific consequences, attached to it? With a subtle nod to the popular 1990s British sitcom, it’s all about keeping up appearances.

While it’s true that Singh hasn’t been completely mute during the bombshell allegations of Chinese interference in the 2019 and 2021 elections, he also hasn’t been a significant participant. “We don’t want to see any interference in Canadians’ ability to make decisions about their future,” he said in a news conference last November. He also joined the Conservatives and other opposition parties in support of a public inquiry in late February. “The way to stop alleged secret Chinese interference is to refuse to keep their secrets for them,” he said, and a “fully independent and non-partisan public inquiry is the way to shine a light into the shadows.”

Both statements were fine, but hardly revelatory or earth-shattering.

When Johnston recommended against holding a public inquiry on May 23, Singh’s response was rather tepid. The NDP leader called the decision “incredibly disappointing,” and suggested “we firmly believe Canadians would benefit from a fulsome, public investigation that maintains the integrity of our intelligence that must be kept confidential.” He also mentioned “New Democrats will keep pushing for an independent, public inquiry that gets people the answers they deserve and fully restores trust in our elections.”

What caused Singh’s shift from being incredibly disappointed with Johnston to calling for his head on a silver platter in one week’s time?

Some have suggested the news involving Johnston’s lead counsel, Sheila Block, could have had some impact. Democracy Watch revealed last week she had donated $7,593.38 to the federal Liberals between 2006-2022. Of the 19 separate political donations that were identified under “Sheila Block” and “Sheila R. Block,” none of them went to any other party.

Did this controversy change Singh’s opinion? It’s possible.

A more likely explanation is NDP MP Jenny Kwan recently being informed by CSIS that she was being targeted by the Chinese government. “What CSIS confirmed with me is that I was a target and I continue to be a target,” she said in the House of Commons foyer on May 29. “They use the term ‘evergreen’ meaning that I will forever be targeted.” Singh also spoke to reporters and made this assessment, “I’ve been very clear in not attacking Mr. Johnston personally and I’ve maintained that, but…It is very clear that the appearance of bias is so high that it erodes the work that the special rapporteur can do.”

What’s happened to Kwan is awful, of course. Singh has every right to be frustrated. Yet, he didn’t speak out as firmly when Conservative MP Michael Chong and former Conservative leader Erin O’Toole revealed the very same thing after their meetings with CSIS.

Therein lies the problem.

Singh’s newly-formed doubts about Johnston’s role as special rapporteur on foreign interference may have only materialized due to a caucus colleague, Kwan, getting caught up in this unfortunate situation. It leaves the impression that his political radar doesn’t focus on major controversies affecting Canada if the NDP isn’t involved in them. Even in the dog-eat-dog world of modern politics, where rigid ideology and partisan rhetoric are both understood, this particular stance doesn’t fly.

It’s also concerning that Singh largely ignored (or avoided) the red flags that started to rapidly appear when Johnston was named special rapporteur. Some were known, including the former Governor General of Canada’s association with the Trudeau family dating back to the 1970s and his previous status as a member of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation. Others were revealed and re-revealed, including Trudeau’s description of his newly appointed special rapporteur as a “family friend” in 2017 and Johnston’s long-term interest in China, including his two daughters having lived there for two years to study Mandarin.

Johnston was far too tied to Trudeau, his family and the matter at hand to be a truly impartial observer. It was always assumed the PM would pick someone he knew and trusted for this padded role, which lacks the political and legal authority to have any meaningful influence or sway. Nevertheless, the PM shouldn’t have chosen Johnston – and Singh, who has helped prop up this minority government, could have spoken out immediately and suggested Trudeau pick someone else.

He didn’t, and that moment has passed. If he hopes to have any meaningful impact in this discussion going forward, he’s whistling Dixie.

Many MPs in the House of Commons laughed uproariously at Singh last December after he exclaimed, “When I’m prime minister, I will keep my promises.” This slip of the tongue made him look ludicrous, out of touch with reality and completely delusional with respect to his political future. The NDP leader’s non-binding motion related to Johnston’s role as special rapporteur is further proof that Parliament’s reaction that day was wholly justified.

Michael Taube, a long-time newspaper columnist and political commentator, was a speechwriter for former Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


This content is only available to our subscribers!

Become a subscriber today!

Register

Already a subscriber?

Subscriber Login