LP_468x60
ontario news watch
on-the-record-468x60-white
and-another-thing-468x60

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.


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 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.


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 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.


“When the real revolution happens,” journalist G.K. Chesterton wrote unkindly, “it won’t be mentioned in the newspapers.” Perhaps a little too unkindly. It will probably be a small item below the fold on page A7 if, indeed, there are still newspapers, which wrote a lot about this “internet” a couple of decades ago without grasping what it would do to their revenue. Just as they may well mention but miss the implications of, oh, say, China ceasing to be the most populous nation in the world.

In geopolitics as in life you win some and you lose some. China is now home to the world chess champion thanks to Ding Liren’s victory over Ian Nepomniachtchi. But it is no longer #1 demographically. Which matters more in the CCP’s drive to world domination? Another thing to which newspapers tend to give little or no attention, even while mentioning its various bits and pieces.

BTW it’s an interesting mark of multiculturalism that the victor’s name is far easier for westerners to pronounce, even if we’re far from sure which is his family name. (It’s “Ding”.) Whereas even guessing where Ian’s family name comes from is a challenge. It’s actually Russian, and includes one of those letters that looks like a bridge, as in the middle of Krushchev, so they’re just pranking us with the “chtch” thing – it’s pronounced NeePOMnishchi.

Lest I seem bigoted, or at least parochial, back in 1972 the English-speaking world, in which every vowel is a “schwa”, was convinced the reigning world champion was called something like Burus Spaskee when his real name was BaRIS SpASSSSkii. But I gress.

The thing is, in 1972 the Soviets were making their ataxic lurch for world domination, having turned Russia into a kind of Frankenstein’s monster still dangerous and even horrifying in disintegration. And though it seemed so preposterous that almost nobody in the west believed it, Brezhnev and his fellow Politgargoyles really thought their collectivist system was better than decadent western individualism. A view apparently fairly widely shared to this day given Putin’s baffling popularity. And so Spassky losing to Bobby Fischer hit them very hard indeed.

Geopolitically they had a pretty good 1970s, all things considered. Economically not so much, but they were kind of used to it and kind of ignorant of how bad it really was. Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko famously had not set foot in the streets of Moscow for 40 years and had no idea how the proles lived. But 1972 saw two dramatic setbacks for them.

One was when Fischer, who really seemed to be a parody of Western individualism and weirdness and actually was going badly off the rails mentally, crushed Spassky. The other was when an ill-disciplined, less-skilled, tobacco-stained Team Canada beat the Soviet elite at hockey in a gritty comeback win. Gritty arguably being a euphemism for some unduly rough play on our side, and typically biased officiating on theirs.

Now fast-forward to 2023 because it does not seem widely understood in the West how pivotal it is in Chinese, as in Russian, culture to see themselves as a dominant force in world affairs. China is, after all, Zhōngguó, the “Central Country” (or “Middle Kingdom” though Communism isn’t big on kings, at least formally). So the rest of us gaijin are the periphery, reluctantly allowed to approach provided we kowtow.

It might be argued that China was not really the central country in the world after about 1800. Or before. And that only parochial ignorance of world affairs had permitted this flattering self-image. But the thing about parochial ignorance is that it is as ignorant as it is parochial, and frequently smug to boot.

Yes, China probably had the world’s largest GDP in 1800. But that fact tells you more about how useful GDP is than how rich China was. Whereas it is of considerable psychological importance that China has been, for longer than anyone can know, the world’s most populous country. (Unless it was India before partition.)

Especially given China’s ethnic homogeneity, over 90% Han, it confers special status, doesn’t it? We are mankind, or peoplekind. We outnumber everyone else. The typical human is Chinese. We are the future. Except um not any more. India now is. Does it matter?

I believe it does, enormously. Far more than newspaper images of the Politburo (which typically fail to mention that every single member, except the bald guy, have the same strange swept-back-left-parted hairstyle as the Maximum Number One Citizen Xi Jinping). For if China is not inherently the centre of the universe, what is it other than a badly-governed, ineptly aggressive, polluted tyranny? Oh dear.

India, incidentally, had the world chess champion for years, the “Tiger of Madras” Viswanathan Anand. But it was never as vital to that nation’s self-image as dominating world chess was to the Soviets because India had rather more going for it. And I don’t think Ding’s victory is going to be the boost Spassky beating Fischer would have been for the Bolsheviks because China has a bunch of other problems including no longer being inherently, naturally and unquestionably the centre of the world demographically.

Ironically the Chinese Communist Party spent years trying to discourage Chinese people from making more Chinese people and it’s one of the very few CCP initiatives that really, truly achieved its aim. Not surprisingly, it turned out to have been a disaster, as China is the first nation in history to grow old before it grew rich, with “little emperor” male only children whose parents will not be amused to see killed invading Taiwan, a shortage of girls and of siblings and a drastic shortage of grandchildren to support the inverted age pyramid.

A number of nations are now in a similar spiral without official encouragement, from Japan to Russia. Indeed, following one of Robson’s Rules of History, namely “Do not attack the Anglosphere”, it is striking that nations that did so went into demographic decline soonest and with dismal predictability. But at least Japan is rich, with robots to keep the elderly company. What has China got?

I remember seeing a video about some vast new mall in China, whose materialist glitter revealed Communism yet again as a cruel parody of capitalism, with all the failings Marx and others hallucinated from impoverishment of the masses to fake democracy and none of the real virtues from enriching the masses to genuine individualism. And they asked some random passerby carefully selected by the Party what he would say to a foreigner who found it overwhelming and garish and he laughed “Welcome to China”.

China is the biggest. China is the best. China will rule the world. Unless um we’re just another country next to a bigger neighbour demographically on one side and geographically on the other, with lousy per-capita income, a cowed populace, an economy and polity riddled with fraud and hopped-up nekulturny arrogance about our “wolf-warrior diplomacy” and vast but dubious armed forces.

We might be the barbarians. And not able to prevail by sheer force of numbers including psychologically.

It’s the beginning of a revolution in world affairs. And you read it here first, folks, on a website not in a newspaper.

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.