Front Burner - Chinese interference allegations escalate

Episode Date: March 27, 2023

Toronto-area MP Han Dong is denying allegations that he worked against the release of ‘the two Michaels’ in 2021. His denial comes in the wake of a story from Global News that alleges Dong advised a senior Chinese diplomat in Toronto to delay the release of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, two Canadians being held in Chinese detention. Meanwhile, calls for a public inquiry into foreign election interference grow louder. Today, CBC’s chief political correspondent Rosemary Barton brings us up to speed on the latest escalation in allegations of Chinese government interference in Canadian affairs. For transcripts of this series, please visit: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/transcripts

In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. This is a CBC Podcast. Hi, I'm Jamie Poisson. On Friday, on his first visit to Canada as U.S. President, Joe Biden addressed Parliament. And his speech had a little slip of the tongue.

So today, I applaud China for stepping up. Excuse me, I applaud Canada. You can tell what I'm thinking. You can't blame the guy for having China on the brain. It was likely on the minds of a lot of people in that room. Because last week, Global News published a stunning scoop, alleging a Liberal member of Parliament had secretly advised a Chinese diplomat to delay freeing two Canadians locked up in a Chinese jail. The Toronto-area MP Han Dong has stepped down from the Liberal caucus and is denying the allegation.

What has been reported is false, and I will defend myself against these absolutely untrue claims. But it's turned the temperature up even higher on an already simmering topic of alleged Chinese interference in Canadian elections, which has been dominating headlines for weeks now. Here to bring us up to speed is Rosemary Barton. We're going to talk about what's being claimed here,

the implications and the fallout thus far. Rosie, hi. Absolutely nothing to talk about today. As always, yeah. Hey, Jamie. Thank you for coming by. So that was a pretty shocking story that Global News published on Wednesday about this now former Liberal MP Han Dong. And I want to get into the implications and the fallout and all of that in a moment. But first, could you just describe for me what this global story claims? Yeah, and I think claims is pretty important here, right?

These are allegations that they published based on a conversation that they had with two national security sources, they say. I don't know who they were and I don't know what they were referring to in their information. So I just want to be really clear about the nature of this information. Basically, they said that Handong, who is a Toronto area MP, had conversations with the consul general at the time. The problem with this is from what these people say is the nature of the conversations, that this happened back in February of 2021, and that Handong said something to the effect, again, according to this reporting, that China should hold off on releasing Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, the two Canadians who had been imprisoned in China for

more than a thousand days. I mean, that's a curious thing for anyone to say. It's certainly curious for a then liberal MP to say. Yeah. Yeah. Unpack that a little bit more for me, because this was part of the story that I found very confusing. It reports that Handong suggested to China's Consul General in Toronto that releasing the two Michaels would help the Conservatives. Yeah, I mean, that's the claim in the reporting. I have racked my brain, frankly, to try and understand what the logic would be there. And the story certainly doesn't put it together. You know, the Liberals were working very hard to have the two Michaels released. The Conservatives were at the time putting a lot of pressure, obviously, on the government to do that, as were many, many other people. For sure. So how has the MP in question, Han Dong, responded? I know he's vigorously denying these allegations. He has stepped down from the Liberal caucus on about immigration issues or issues in their writing. It's the substance behind these allegations, obviously, that is the troubling part. But he really forcefully denies that this was the nature of the conversation.

Stone confirmed to Global News that the conversation took place, but he denied he initiated the discussion and says that he advocated for the two Michaels to be set free. At every opportunity before they returned home, I adamantly demanded their release to Canada without delay, said Dong. He does admit that he did speak to this particular Chinese diplomat and that conversation happened at this particular time. He agrees with the dates, but he says that he has never and never would advocate or support the violation of basic human rights of any Canadian. As a parliamentarian and as a person, I have never and I will never and would never advocate or support the violation of the basic human rights of any Canadian, of anyone, anywhere, period. He says that he plans to fight these charges in some capacity, that he wants to clear his name. He stepped aside, really, because it would have been difficult to stay inside the Liberal caucus

with those allegations hanging over his head, whether they are true or not. And now it sounds like, at least again, according to the Globe and Mail reporting, he is also launching a defamation suit against Global News. I should say I've reached out to Hang Dong a number of times to try and speak with him, to get an interview to confirm that defamation suit and how quickly that might happen. I haven't had a response. But he is, you know, beginning to fight back and try and push back against these very specific and very troublesome allegations. And certainly I watched his address in the House of Commons last week when he stepped down from Liberal caucus. It was really emotional, especially when he spoke about his family.

To my wife, Sophie, and my kids, I love you. I thank you for all the support and love you gave me. The truth will protect us. Our honor and our family will get through this together. Sorry about that. Thank you, speaker. And you mentioned the Globe and Mail. So Global published their story, then the Globe and Mail followed up with their own.

And what does the Globe story say about this 2021 conversation between Handong and this senior Chinese diplomat? So a couple of things. I mean, obviously, Global and The Globe have been doing a lot of reporting on this. They both seem to have sources inside the national security apparatus. I don't know if that means CSIS or elsewhere, but that's where a lot of their stories are coming from around these allegations of interference by China in our electoral process. In this case, the Globe says that it also was told about this conversation. But because they couldn't get their hands on either a transcript or a recording because there's some speculation this was a wiretap of some kind, they didn't actually go ahead and publish it. I will say that myself and my colleague David Cochran, we also heard this week that the Prime Minister's office had had access to this

in some form or another. And that just like the Globe and Mail, we were also told that they looked at this information or heard this information and concluded that it wasn't quote unquote actionable. What does that mean? I guess that they didn't think there was anything criminal or problematic in what they saw or heard, and so they didn't do anything further. It was when this actual report came out that Hendong obviously agreed that he needed to step aside as an independent. But I think that what's important to take away there is the Globe and Mail also had some piece of this, didn't have the exact original source, and so didn't feel comfortable publishing it until it was already put forward by Global News. And that to me speaks to, I mean, maybe some journalistic inside baseball, but it speaks to sort of the bar that journalists feel needs to

be cleared in order to publish something that is based on anonymous, unnamed sources, based on classified information that we don't necessarily have the full picture or context of. Is it possible that the transcript or the conversation happened like Global News reported it did. And the prime minister's office has seen that and thinks that is not actionable. Well, we know that they've seen something related to this phone call and that the conclusion seems to have been that it wasn't actionable. I couldn't tell you what that means, though, in terms of what they saw and why they concluded that. But obviously, once that became public, because again, this isn't information that was intended to be made public, it became untenable for Handong to be inside caucus without that then being dealt with. And the problem with these kinds

of stories, I'll just sort of harken back to something that the Deputy Foreign Minister, or the Deputy Minister of Global Affairs, David Morrison, said in front of a parliamentary committee, because I found his testimony really enlightening as someone who doesn't obviously have access to intelligence. And he said that it was clear that intelligence doesn't paint a full concrete, or he actually used the word actionable picture. And he said that intelligence is not evidence. And it's just part of what decision makers look at when they make a decision. Let me say it is extremely rare to come across an intel report that is concrete enough to constitute a smoking gun.

Intelligence is much more a game of disparate pieces of information, many of which don't seem to fit together, at least initially. It is only after one reads a full body of intelligence over time that one can approximate an actual picture of what might be happening and why. So I'm not saying that this is true or not true, these reports. But I think that's pretty important context from someone who has access to a lot of intelligence documents to understanding what we may or may not know from the reporting. It's probably worth mentioning here, related to that, something I heard Chantal Hébert bring up on your At Issue panel the other night. First of all, I think it's probably proper to talk about allegations rather than revelations. That's right. Why do I say that? Because this story is based on anonymous sources.

Which is the same idea. Just because a story comes from intelligence sources, it doesn't mean that what those sources say is gospel. And she brought up the example of Mahar Arar, the Canadian engineer who was deported by the U.S. to a black site in Syria where he was tortured. And the Canadian inquiry into that whole really awful story concluded that

Canadian officials leaked inaccurate information about that case to the media, not to mention we just marked the 20th anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq. And I just, you know, none of this is to say that the global sources are inaccurate. But as you said, many times, we don't know. I just think it's fair to say that there are a lot of unanswered questions here. And this is a story with pretty serious potential consequences. Yeah, I think that's it, right? I mean, we don't know what we're dealing with. Do we have questions? And does the Canadian public deserve further answers because of the questions these stories raise? The answer is yes. And so that's where I think my focus is right now, is how do we understand these reports

and what can the government, intelligence officials or others do to reassure Canadians about the integrity of our electoral process and our elected officials. What has the Trudeau government been saying since this story came out, in addition to their comments that they've looked at this conversation and they don't think that it's actionable? Yeah, and to be fair, they're not saying that. Those are government sources or senior sources. Fair, sorry. So it's not even the prime minister coming out and acknowledging those reports in any way. Listen, they point to the actions that they have taken in the past, whether it be setting up that small group of very high

ranking public servants who are supposed to raise the alarm bell during an election if something untoward happens, if there's a real case of interference, to the things that they are doing now, which of course is around the special rapporteur David Johnston, and I know we'll talk more about that. What they have not done and are resisting for now anyway is a public inquiry or a federal court review of these documents. I'm confident that the special rapporteur will have the mandate, the terms of reference, and the scope to put forward recommendations that may include a public inquiry as well as some timelines that are sensitive to the pressing nature of the questions that Canadians are posing. But I think more... There is a real feeling that at a parliamentary committee, at the National Security Parliamentary Committee,

which is a group of all parties that are there and has special clearance, they can look into this. And David Johnston, that there is a handle on people, enough people there who have access to this information can look at it and sort of assess what more needs to be done. I'll say this, that, you know, as we're talking about these stories, sort of, you know, in an abstract way, trying to understand what's happening, to, on Friday afternoon, look up and see on the TV screen Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor inside the House of Commons for a emotional, dramatic moment when that house stood on their feet and gave these two men a standing ovation. Perseverance and strength. These are words that perfectly describe two men who are here

with us today, Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor. It certainly reminded me and should remind all of Canadians of what we are actually talking about here in terms of the power of China and the impact of China on Canadians' lives. There

are no two men who know that better than those two men. And we haven't seen them really publicly since they were released. And we certainly haven't heard from them. So that to me was that a really poignant reminder that this is not just about election interference, which is hugely important, of course, but this is also about how China impacts Canadians and Canadians' lives. And that can also include, of course, Chinese Canadians who are feeling pressure and threats to do certain things from the Chinese government from far away. In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection.

Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization. Empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. Hi, it's Ramit Sethi here. You may have seen my money show on Netflix. I've been talking about money for 20 years. I've talked to millions of people and I have some startling numbers to share with you. Did you know that of the people I speak to, 50% of them do not know their own household income?

That's not a typo. 50%. That's because money is confusing. In my new book and podcast, Money for Couples, I help you and your partner create a financial vision together. To listen to this podcast, just search for Money for Couples. Just to get back to the latest developments with the story with regards to Handong, how has the opposition reacted here? Obviously, they have questions. I saw an immigration committee hearing where Conservative MP Michael Chong tried to ask the Foreign Affairs Minister Melanie Jolie about the news.

He was interrupted and told his time was up. ...reporting that Liberal MP Handong has secretly advised... Point of order, Madam Chair. Point of order. Sorry for interrupting. Time is up for Mr. Chong. Thank you. Madam Chair, I... No, no, we're challenging you. I challenge your ruling.

I haven't finished. I've been interrupted twice, Madam Chair. But in general, how are they reacting here? I will say this. They are careful when it comes to the specific allegations, particularly if they're speaking outside of the House of Commons, because inside they are protected when it comes to the specific allegations, particularly if they're speaking outside of the House of Commons, because inside they are protected legally from what they say. But they are careful to not be overly specific about Mr. Dong. Where they continue to be aligned is the notion of a public inquiry. Just this past week, I believe it was on Thursday,

the NDP had put forward a motion to call for a public inquiry just this past week. I believe it was on Thursday. The NDP had put forward a motion to call for a public inquiry. I declare the motion carried. The NDP, Conservatives and Bloc all supported a non-binding motion calling for a public inquiry. The Liberals voted against it. There are communities that are at risk

of being stigmatized, and the only way for us to address all the seriousness of this, get to the bottom of it and propose real solutions is with a public inquiry. Hendong was one of the people that voted for that, as did all the other parties. It's a non-binding motion,

so the government doesn't have to go ahead and do anything about it, but it is a continued demonstration that there is cross-partisan agreement, that the Parliamentary Committee is not going to get the Canadian public the answers that it needs, that a public inquiry is needed. And that's sort of the track that they're all taking. And I think we'll continue to take until something further happens. But what could a public inquiry really help us learn, given so much of intelligence is supposed to be secret? You know, are we just

going to call a public inquiry and all these people are going to be like, can't talk about that? Yeah, I mean, I think that's the question. It's certainly the question I have. What more are we going to know in a public inquiry if we're basing this on documents that legally none of us are allowed to see? I don't know what the answer is, but I think, and I'm not sure that that is the answer, you know, and it's not for me to say, but if there were to be something further, a broader discussion at least from experts, from former intelligence officers, from the intelligence agencies, parliamentarians, I think at very least you might get a broader picture of what we're dealing with. You might get a broader understanding

of how serious this is, how concerned we should be, and the steps that have been taken in order to protect Canadian electoral systems. I think CSIS, from what I understand based on the testimony and the conversations I've had, is very obviously not only protective of classified information, but protective of active intelligence sources. They don't want to burn places where they are getting information from human sources or otherwise. And that information, that intelligence that they gather, doesn't always get translated into something that then has to be investigated by the RCMP and turned into criminal charges. So how do you deal with that reality, that there is a benefit to keeping these sources

going so that you can continue to extract information versus how then that information gets translated into something else. So I'm not sure what a public inquiry would be. But you mentioned Meher Arar. They were able to do it with wouldn't breach national secrets and create a problem for all of our allies with whom we share information and still allow people to feel a little more secure in what's actually happening. I also feel like there are probably larger questions that have been raised with this story from last week. For example, like if Canadian intelligence has a transcript of this call, is CSIS wiretapping sitting MPs or are they wiretapping foreign diplomats here in Canada? Is this something they do regularly? Does the government know about this? And I mean, whether or not CSIS wants Canada to talk about that, I would imagine there are lots of people that think that we should have that conversation. And I do wonder if a public inquiry would kind of get at some of these really important questions. Yeah, I mean, I should say parliamentarians have been warned by the security apparatus and the House of Commons that they should assume that their government phones and emails are being looked at and tapped and followed. That's part of the reason

they can't use TikTok anymore, right? And I think that is generally the assumption of people in this town. Does that mean that CSIS is also following a conversation? Our own elected officials. Yeah, I don't know. But certainly you can imagine that if other countries are doing it to us, then we are doing it to them. to them. Okay, so we don't have a public inquiry yet, as you said, but the Trudeau government did appoint former Governor General David Johnston as an independent special rapporteur on foreign interference. And this pick was actually not without controversy, hey? Yeah, I mean, when I got a heads up that the choice was coming, the person that gave me the heads up said, this is an unimpeachable choice. You will see when you hear the name that no one will take issue with this person. response to the person who told me this on the phone was, I think you should wait and see,

because this story goes in all sorts of partisan directions, no matter who was involved. And on that front, I was right. Criticism of that choice was swift, with the opposition questioning Johnston's impartiality. All of this points to him covering up the truth because he's afraid that Canadians will find out how he failed to stand up for our interests and instead stood up for his own. There's no one here questioning David Johnston's loyalty to Canada or his commitment to public service. Why else would he have taken this job, to be honest? Because it is an unpleasant job already from what I can tell. But the fact of the matter is there is some baggage there that has allowed the opposition to attack Mr. Johnston. The fact that he was a member of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, which is not connected to the prime minister, but of course bears his dad's name.

And it is Justin Trudeau that has put Mr. Johnson in this terrible situation by naming a member of the China-financed Trudeau Foundation to perform this role of looking into Beijing's interference in our election campaigns. The fact that Trudeau talked in the past of how they were kind of family friends, gone skiing with some of his kids at some point. Getting to know someone as a family friend or a friend of your father's is very different from having the honor of working alongside them. These all became things that the conservatives in particular used to go after this choice to try and discredit the process and David Johnston himself.

I would point out that David Johnston was named governor general by Stephen Harper, that before the 2015 election, Stephen Harper prolonged his time as governor general in order to carry through the election. prolonged his time as governor general in order to carry through the election. So this is all about how to poke holes in what the government is doing and how serious they are about it. And I don't think it actually has an awful lot to do with Mr. Johnston. What are the next steps for him, you think, as special rapporteur? So from what I understand, he's gathering together sort of a team, a legal team that will be able to assist him in this. He already has clearance to look at these documents and has, I should a decision. He has to do that by May 23rd. The government, in an unusual step, has said, whatever he says, we will do.

So that sort of puts them in a box. It's just a matter of waiting for him to say something. Most of the people I talk to now think that it is probably likely he will point to some sort of public inquiry or some sort of review, this isn't just going to go away. This is going to be looked at further and the government will have to follow what it has said about David Johnston's recommendations. Rosie, thank you very much for this. Thanks, Jamie. We'll talk again, I'm sure.

Yes, thank you. All right, that's allbc.ca slash podcasts.