Nuanced. - 248. Sam Cooper: How Is China Interfering in Canada?

Episode Date: July 6, 2026

Sam Cooper joins to examine China, First Nations, foreign interference, reconciliation, Alberta separatism, the Conservative Party and Pierre Poilievre’s approach to national security, as well as David Eby and Mark Carney’s recent housing announcement as part of a broader conversation about Canada’s sovereignty crisis.Send us Fan MailSupport the shownuancedmedia.ca

What is the relationship between the Chinese Communist Party and different First Nation communities? Yeah, it's a relationship that is definitely of concern to the Canadian CIS, you know, Canada's CIA. The First Nations Energy and Mining Council developed a First Nations China strategy focused on trade mining energy investment and rights. China will reach out to municipal leaders, you know, they'll reach out to school board leaders. They'll approach everyone. And whenever Chinese CCP entities are approaching a leader in Canada, it's bad news. Do you believe that Pierre Polyev is best positioned to make Canada strong and free? I do.

Again, and Aaron, I want to say, like, I've never been part of a political party in my life. I'm not a partisan. They had the fortitude to say they support a well-respected Taiwan that is part of the international community. Pierre Polyev and the Conservatives, We'll say that. That in itself tells me that they're willing to stand up to CCP and efforts to get everyone, including Mark Carney, to not say such words, to get Mark Carney to stop, you know, liberal MPs from visiting Taiwan. Carney and Eby announced a plan to convert more than 2,200 vacant condo units into affordable housing. Is this a practical housing response or does it risk becoming a bailout for developers and investors?

Sam Cooper, thank you so much for joining us again. You need no introduction because our last interview reached 75,000 people, and many of them know your work and have been following the approach you've been taking on so many files. But I'm just curious, how have you been, what's new with you, any news to share? Thanks, Aaron. I really enjoyed our last conversation. And to your point, I mean, even I'm surprised sometimes when I travel now, people sometimes recognize me or or feel like they know me from TV and they don't really know me from TV. They know me from podcasting and my work, which is just showing the way the

world is changing. And I mean, I've been at the Bureau, my independent investigative platform for three years now, almost 40,000 subscribers. It's a recognized independent news media entity internationally. I have traveled, I'm doing something unique. I've traveled North America for the start of 2026, you know, up into the spring, in some cases talking to, you know, senior law enforcement groups in Washington State or Idaho, where they met. I've been down to Washington, D.C., to talk, you know, at a very, you know, well-recognized think tank called the Hudson Institute, which is paying attention to geopolitical conflicts with, you know, Iran, Israel, China's interference, you know, throughout the world. And so they were interested in my sort of understanding of those issues and what's going on in Canada.

So that's what's going on with me. I just feel, you know, pretty rewarded that an independent journalist has successfully started a platform and is talking to high-level people across North American. now. As am I. Just following your work now, it's been a huge privilege. The reason I was eager to have you back on, I know you report daily, but I was getting a lot of questions for a period of time on what my thoughts were on the relationship between China and various First Nation communities. And I'm sure you've seen there was this strategy put together by the BC First Nations Mining Council around having a China strategy. Could you, from the outset, what is the relationship? What is the relationship between the Chinese Communist Party and different First Nation communities?

Yeah, it's a relationship that is definitely of concern to the Canadian CIS, you know, Canada's CIA. It's also a relationship that's, you know, fraught with deep sensitivities that are, you know, more and more bubbling up in Canada with regards to, you know, jurisdictional questions with what's going on in the Arctic or what's going on across Canada. And Aaron, I want to couch what I'm going to say this way. It's kind of ironic when I point to, and I will, probably in a careful way, certain band leaderships or reserves where treaties haven't be resolved in some places treaties have. and very clearly North American law enforcement

does have a concern with some of the activities going on, for example, you know, in the Six Nations border area in Ontario, where I have reported, along with others, and I know my reports of interest

to people in the American government as well as Canada, that, you know, some areas have become saturated with a high level of international organized crime activity involving, you know, Mexican cartels' CCP-related crime. And indigenous actors, who my assessment is, and along with some law enforcement that I won't

always be able to name, my assessment is some indigenous actors have unfortunately used the sort of historical, I would say, have used this jurisdictional battle that's happening in Canada, and the Indian Act, which hasn't been that beneficial to a lot of First Nations people, has been beneficial as a shield for some indigenous crime actors working together with the CZP and Mexican cartels. I would say from my talks at a high level of North American police experts, this is a growing concern how those very, very sensitive and tricky, jurisdictional historical legal issues have bubbled up to become, you know, sort of a shield. You'll hear Cash Patelk talk about, you know, the indigenous lands or working together with

indigenous law enforcement partners. And so those are the issues that are happening in Canada. But again, they're very sensitive. So to get back to your first question, I think I rambled. I wasn't trying to dodge. Yeah, there are indigenous groups that have gotten together as coalitions. and basically come out with the policy that they should be negotiating nation to nation with China with regards to, you know, resource development and resource privileges.

And so, you know, I don't know if I have the constitutional law grounding to really dive into that, but I can see a problem there. CIS, in their sensitive way, can see a problem there. They're having discussions with indigenous leaders and, you know, people up in northern Canada about the inroads of Chinese agents trying to, I would say, work directly with some indigenous leaders that, you know, to the detraction of Canada's sovereignty. But I want to say, I'm not giving Canada's government or other governments across Canada a very good grade in the way that they're dealing with China or Mexican cartels.

So I just think it's important that I bring that context that, you know, I don't think any in Canada is doing very well. And that includes some indigenous leaders. Well, thank you for being willing to share that. I imagine you're used to walking in political landmines, but I would see this one, this one is another because I imagine for many it's sensitive when you just look at, okay, so we have these First Nation communities across Canada. Many of them are in poverty. Many of them have unresolved land, right interests, unresolved interest in what reconciliation might look like for them. And then you have this other government

that's willing to address some of those socioeconomic concerns, I imagine, with money and investment. And even like growing up as a kid, like I saw very two clearly different paths. One, I work really hard and hope that there's a better life by getting an education, working hard, putting my nose down, or joining a gang and having a media. financial reward, but never being able to reenter the other kind of pathway. Like once you go down that path, it's kind of hard to get out. And so you could even see this

for a First Nation community. And honestly, even Canada's government going like, okay, we need money. We're bleeding money. How do we start to address this? How do we bring in enough investment? How do we bring in enough money to keep our standard of living or potentially improve it? And there's the Chinese Communist Party standing right there with a lot of lot of money and influence. Is this what you're seeing? Is this the best level of analysis? Yeah, I think you nailed it in sort of a very, and it's interesting, you growing up in, in sort of with a path to leadership, with a path to success, you know, and you chose a path. But I mean, there are, I'm informed very reliably that there are, while much of,

Unfortunately, the indigenous nations, populations are, you know, a lot of people know that people have worse health outcomes, worse even life expectancy in a lot of areas for the indigenous people in Canada. And yet there are people of tremendous wealth that I'm reliably informed within some indigenous power structures that would have cartel-level wealth and connections. So that points to a serious concern that, again, at the Bureau, I'm someone that kind of, I wouldn't say dives head-in-head-first, but is able to talk to people at a good, let's say, criminal intelligence and national security intelligence-level understanding

that these have lawn-been sort of concerns that some indigenous lands are used for transnational, weapons dealing, tobacco production that will involve, you know, Chinese actors, Mexican actors, biking actors. So yeah, those paths are there. And then as the Indian Act appears, you know, I would say much like another major Canadian law, the Charter of Rights, to be able to be used by bad actors, international bad actors. And just to circle back to your analysis about, you know, I would say Chinese agents, you know, flying up north to the Arctic. And I've even seen pictures of people that I was very interested in in the BC casino money laundering story and the Canada election interference story and the CCP police station story.

I've seen pictures of people I know by name planting a Chinese flag up in, you know, the Arctic lands beside a Canadian flag. So this is a very anecdotal way to say that I've reported for the Bureau on a country. a CIS document that says China's intelligence networks have done studies on indigenous leaders. They have identified who they believe that they can target through corruptive means. They have invited indigenous leaders, just like they've invited senators and MPs on junkets to China. And the CIS document I'm referring to says those junkets are cast around a attracting tourism to indigenous lands across Canada. But the Chinese intelligence agents even let it slip,

that it's something called PayPal or fooling. It's fooling the indigenous leaders that this is about tourism when it's about corrupting them and seeking their resources. So this is a known thing by Canadian intelligence. And again, I do have the feeling, or I know that they like the RCMP, due to some very, in the RCMP's case, some bad, really bad policing, they've, at this point, let's say the modern problems I'm pointing to, I would say they're walking on eggshells with some of, you know, these indigenous leaders that I don't, that are probably, I would say, open to corruptive foreign forces. That's what's happening now. Do you see a pathway to address this in some meaningful way? I'm just imagining my First Nation community, which is looking for economic opportunities.

We're looking for hotel proponents. We're looking for partners that want to support in the growth so we can employ our members. So we don't rely on government funding in the future. And investors, as you might imagine, in this economy, are hard to come by. And so when you have anybody willing to invest or put money forward, that can be a really big deal for First Nation communities, particularly the rural communities that are not in the center of Toronto or in the center of Vancouver. It's much harder for us to find opportunities to develop in a tourism-type focus that you're describing. How does this get addressed?

Are you thinking, or like, oh, is the plan that CIS meets with these First Nations and says, hey, probably not a good idea. But then what else are they supposed to do would be the obvious, like, next question. How do we go about addressing this from your perspective? Yeah, there's absolutely no easy answers with resource development, nor should there be, because we do need to be concerned about environmental impacts, and none would be greater, in my view, than do we have clean drinking water? Do we have clean air? So you got to, I mean, my answer to you about how to handle any potential bad actors,

foreign, probably through fronts approaching, you know, banned leaders or indigenous leaders with development proposals. Yes, CIS and the RCMP should be very accurate and very, you know, there should be a friendly visiting relationship. They should be able to disclose just as they're doing in visits to, you know, various university leaders that China is stealing our intellectual property at scale, they should just as easily be able to meet indigenous leaders and say China is attempting to steal your and Canada's resources at scale. And that's my answer for Canada and indigenous leaders. I just think, you know, Canada through casinos or shady banking deals has gone for the cheap foreign buck, which was an easy mark, you know, to say. I don't,

that's not a very good investment. People went for it, especially in British Columbia, as I argue, very, very at scale and very easily. I think we should be developed. My own personal view is Canada is blessed with incredible natural resources that are becoming from critical minerals to energy more important to security and national sovereignty in our modern world. And by that, I mean, I think, as you know, America, no matter of the rhetoric coming from Washington, is, Canada's real ally. There are nations that are our adversaries, China, Russia, and others. So Canada should be developing our resources, should be developing our critical minerals at scale with the best environmental protections possible. And that is what needs to happen on

indigenous, you know, jurisdiction lands just as, you know, Canadian lands and together. I just think it's kind of a simple answer, but it's not a simple fix. because there's so many moving parts. This is probably one of the most personal questions that I'm going to ask. But as you might imagine, there are many First Nations people who don't see themselves represented in Canada as an institution. They're skeptical there talking about decolonization, disconnecting from Canada, becoming their own nations, as you described a little bit, wanting more independence, believing that Canada is. is a bad actor that harmed them through Indian residential schools, the 60s scoop, through diseases, and a lack of interest in collaborating

and focused on assimilating and removing the savage from the Indian. And so I can imagine some of those people being like, Sam, what's the difference? We've got Canada who screwed us over for 150 years. And then we have the Chinese Communist Party showing up and offering us a lot of money and investment. and an opportunity to rise out of poverty. I see somewhat a similar argument, and that's why I want to get your read, when Ellis Ross is going, hey, development's the best way out of all of these problems, and industry and letting pipelines be built,

there's kind of like a feeling by some First Nations that, like, Ellis Ross sold out, and that Billy Morin sold out. And I'm not saying they did. I'm just saying there's this perception that anything you do that's in the interest of Canada, business corporations, any of these things, is not in the best interest of indigenous people. And I can see the same argument being put forward. And I just be interested to like First Nation walks in and goes,

yeah, Sam, but I've been screwed over by Canada and China. What would you say to that First Nations leader? Yeah. I mean, that's a question that can frame a few books. And I do think about it in those philosophical terms and historical terms. And it's impossible to get like a clean, straight, easy answer. But to your point about China, approaching indigenous leaders and saying, hey, there's a history of genocide, etc., etc.

Yeah, they do that. They're not stupid. They study whatever is coming out of Ottawa in Taiwan. They approach what they see as indigenous or non, I guess you would say, non-Han Chinese residents in Taiwan. So, you know, if we're being sort of sociological, I don't even know the word, There's people that are indigenous to Taiwan that would, you know, the same as any other island in sort of the Indo-Pacific or Micronesia. And, you know, they are different from the mostly, you know, Chinese population or Chinese migrant to Taiwan.

And so the CCP will approach them and sort of say, you should have much more rights in this area. You should, it's a, and they'll come out with complex arguments basically saying the Taiwanese government is treating very badly. We will treat you better. Same story in Australia with the indigenous people there. The CCP is approaching, you know, aboriginals in Australia making the same arguments. So that's their Chinese intelligence operations. They're trying to get into a very historically fraught, you know, a society, you know, that has colonized and make arguments to divide it even further. And so that is what it is. You know, they're going to do that around the world and try to sort of divide your society, work on existing sort of fissures and make them wider

and sort of undermine your sovereignty that way. So the bigger philosophical question, you know, Canada, a colonized nation of Western people that we all know the story, you know, the same story in many ways in the United States of America sort of like we're here where we are now can Canada continue

as a national entity if numerous indigenous you know entities say that they want to decolonize or have been treated so badly that there are other

there are other partners out there that would be better And that gets back to, you know, yeah, there are coalitions, especially in British Columbia, that have said they should be negotiating nation to nation with China. Well, I say that is, they have the freedom to make that argument, but Chinese intelligence also has the freedom to use that argument and wants to use that argument. And Aaron, I'll go a slightly deeper here because it came up in my Hudson Institute panel. you know, there's analysts in Washington that I think have access, you know, as I do, to people involved in sort of intelligence gathering that are starting to forward the view that sort of the decolonization narrative can be seen, interestingly, you know, to sort of partner the pro-Palestine groups with far-left eco-groups. And then, as I said and others said, sometimes you have indigenous groups in Canada or Colombia, you know, throughout the Western Hemisphere that will be making those arguments. And the broader question in my mind is, at some point, has China, Venezuela, or Cuba in an intelligence sort of capacity being behind promoting those decolonization narratives?

and this is very fascinating, tricky stuff. But I think at some level, some of those intelligence operations are going on and being disseminated into the broader sort of decolonization and eco-justice narrative. So that, you know, I'm adding another little layer of analysis to this crazy and confusing picture that I see in Canada right now.

Have you followed at all the co-jointed, First Nations organization piece because there were accusations that they were also being, that some of these organizations, to your point, are funded by other organizations. And the Coastal First Nations one, I've seen it put out there that there's U.S.-backed companies that are backing coastal first nations in their fight against having a pipeline. And so, like, you can absolutely see when we're talking about mining and development of oil and more independence that there would be foreign actors who would say we don't want Canada to become independent and an energy superpower. They're either reliant on us or they're more easier to control

if they don't have more of that independence. How do you think that flows through to some of these eco eco organizations? I'm glad you asked it because that's exactly the type of stuff that was coming up in my talk in Washington, D.C. So I don't know specifically. specifically about that coastal coalition that you pointed to, but I do know that some of the experts I have talked to said that they have the either evidence or impression that in some cases either indigenous or eco-justice or environmentalist groups have been subject to Chinese intelligence, let's say, influence with regards to the big picture of China wanting to have an imprint in Canada's critical, you know, minerals and resources. The United States very obviously has,

you know, a dog in the fight. They'd like to see resources flow in that way. Canada, if we want to be sovereign, should be wanting to develop those things. I say with our allies, which does not include China and Russia in my vocabulary. And so, yeah, I am aware of, let me put it this way, Professor Brenda Schaefer at this panel I was at in Washington, D.C., pointed to Tides Canada, which is a known entity that has come up in reporting, you know, on environmental issues in British Columbia. Brenda Schaefer, the professor, said that she had discovered through, I think they call them Form 990s or something, sort of nonprofit, financial disclosures that ultimately China had been involved in some funding of Tides, which is one of these ultimately U.S.-based sort of left-wing

eco-justice entities that you and I may be hearing about in connection to political movements in British Columbia. I found it interesting that Tides Canada was a big sponsor of former Mayor Gregor Robertson, you know, that was a lot of my reporting as a younger reporter on the city hall in Vancouver, how Tides, and, you know, there was a big U.S. business person named Joe Solomon from Tides was a big supporter of Gregor Robertson, and they were always kind of involved in the questions over whether sort of pipeline interests were being blocked. So, I mean, I would like to be more precise and granular in my answer, but I kind of, what I'm saying is your question points to a framework that I'm aware that definitely is being studied in, I would say, in intelligence agencies and by

think tanks. What duty do you think First Nations owe in terms of all of this information? Like I've heard, again, on Twitter, a lot of frustration from people, and Twitter isn't real life, so with that caveat, but frustration around Sawasin doing a land deal with, I think, like, a Chinese-backed company and giving over the rights to manage that Tuasun Mall over to a Chinese-backed company. Should they not be pursuing these types of things? Is every deal with China suspicious? Like, what level of analysis should we be bringing to some of these agreements? Is it be skeptical of all? I'm just trying to figure out what level of analysis when I hear news of these things that I should be bringing.

Yeah. Maybe if you'll roll with me, maybe we can have what I call an investigative conversation here. If you tell me a little bit more about what you know about Sawson and that deal, then I can inform you through my photo analysis and information that I have from criminal intelligence sources. my concern with the people I see at Sawasun Mall from the China side. And I do think there are deep concerns there. So if you could give me a framework, what's that deal about? Sure. So there was a treaty between Sawson and the federal government and the provincial government

in order to bring land in. I've got to pull up here, Sawasin Mills Shopping Mall was developed on Sawasin First Nations Treaty Land and is operated on a long-term lease. In May 2022, the mall was sold to Central Walk, a Vancouver-based Chinese-owned real estate firm, chaired by investor Ruby Liu or Wei Hong Liu. And this has been raised from my understanding

by people who follow your work going like, hey, what is Sawson doing with a Chinese-backed company and bringing a lot of skepticism to that? Yeah, so from my understanding, from my knowledge, that woman, that investor, there are videos circulating online where speaking in Mandarin, she says that, you know, she is, she is or was part of the United Front Work Department in China. So that would be, you know, I'm sure she's not here to answer anything, but I have reported, you know, accurately based on documents that everyone from sort of the CIA

to CIS, to RCMP says that the United Front Work Department is involved in Chinese interference in the Western world. And, you know, my reporting is that China appoints business people to bodies of either the United Front Work Department or there's one they call the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. That why the CCP does that is they want to bring influential, wealth, people in China that aren't necessarily CCP members into sort of the core political group of the CCP. And, you know, once they do that, some of those individuals travel to other nations and would be involved in things like I assert the CCP police stations or underground casinos or sort of methods of real estate money laundering. I know there was coverage that that woman was involved in attempting to buy

the Hudson's Bay franchises across the country and it was an interesting lawsuit so people can read up on that but her Doug Douglas Todd with the Vancouver Sun has reported on sort of her saying openly in these

videos that she had some association to Beijing's United Front Work Department. So that is what it is but I can tell you this there were photographs of sort of a Chinese New Year event held at the Swasson Mills Mall. And they were shared with me.

I know my colleague Bob Mackin posted a clip of it on his ex account. And I would say a leading expert on sort of China's interference in Canada shared the clip with me and pointed to a number of the people, you know, at that event and said, this is the A team of Chinese organized crime. and CCP interference. So I won't go through all the names, the image and the names are burned into my memory. I've studied them often.

But there's no question that some of these people would be, although, you know, involved in some cases in lawsuits with me from my reporting, without a doubt. They have been targets of CCP police station investigations, the BC casino money laundering investigations, of interest to the United States government and the United States government's deep concerns with what's happening in commercial activity in British Columbia and the United States government's concern that this is sort of undermining not only Canada's national security but threatening America's national security. So does a photo of a number of people at that Chinese New Year event in that mall prove anything necessarily?

No, but I can tell you that the U.S. government and the Canadian government certainly is concerned with some of those people and their economic activity. What would you want to see happen in a circumstance like this back in 2022? Would the ideal process have been like CIS reaches out to the community and goes, hey, we don't support this, we don't recommend this, this is dangerous for our national security? And then I can imagine the First Nation going, this is our way to economic independence. like you can't just block that because you don't like the people. But then ultimately would have been better had it been stopped or sold to somebody else.

Like what, like just on this granular level, what's the pathway forward? Yeah. To your question, that's exactly the right step. CESIS should visit the indigenous leaders involved in any proposed deals. I'm not just pointing at, you know, the particular example you raised. I'm saying across the country, probably especially in the north right now, where the U.S. government and Canada's military are most concerned that Canada faces challenges from China and Russia in their complex plays to gain a foothold in the north, from Greenland to Canada's north. CIS should have fulsome disclosure. They should be able to point to people, point to entities, and say, these people are bad news, right?

But here's the rub and here's the concern. Just like Canadian politicians have told me many times, when CIS visits them with what's called a threat debrief, so this is a meeting saying, I'll just paraphrase what happens, just to speak very plainly, CESIS will have a concern that some politician is being approached or cultivated or even in,

involved with a Chinese threat actor, they'll visit the politician and say, hey, you might want to be a little bit concerned. You know, we have some concerns, but it'll be very broad, very generic. It won't be granular and specific. So what does that do? It may leave confusion on the part of an honest actor that what were they even warning me about? What should I do? Or it gives cover to a dishonest actor to say, you visited me and you spouted a bunch of generic, you know, boilerplate. What can I do with that? Well, you certainly can't prove that you told me I was doing something wrong. So I just think, look, I'm speaking simply, as I told you before, Aaron, at one time I thought I might have wanted to be a lawyer. I didn't follow that path. I know these things are very tricky,

but Canada is very much airing on the side of not, not, not. disclosing what what Canadian police and intelligence really know to be real concerns. I would say to people that should have the best information, you know, to act for their interests and their people. I mentioned this earlier. The First Nations Energy and Mining Council developed a First Nations China strategy focused on trade mining energy investment and rights. I don't think that that actually went anywhere in the end. But when you hear that, what does that mean to you? Is that a concern that First Nations organizations are really focused on this sector?

Because it doesn't sound like it went anywhere. Is there no cause for concern? How do we kind of think about China's relationship with our resource extraction? Yeah, I think it is a concern. And I don't have, you know, I won't say that I followed, you know, to the, the most recent sort of iteration of where those plans landed. But I will say that, you know, my concerns start just on an anecdotal basis that I'll do a little history trip here. You know, before I got into exposing the Vancouver model and the BC casino money laundering scandal,

I was following like a certain Richmond lawyer in Richmond, British Columbia. and I was digging into some legal cases, you know, investor disputes. And I was kind of shocked that this real estate lawyer was traveling across British Columbia, meeting with municipal leaders, along with, you know, like a former Canadian liberal MP who was an immigration judge. It just made my mind bend. But this shady Richmond lawyer who later turned up in RCMP investigation, into the BC casino money laundering story was traveling up and down British Columbia

trying to meet with leaders at whatever level, including municipal, to strike resource extraction deals, like jade extraction, port access deals. And I didn't know what I then, what I know now, but it appeared to me

that this was kind of a Chinese investment sort of play that probably in my mind at that time had intelligence and organized crime, linkages. Now when I look back, I would say, yeah, that was a good assessment. And so again, it's not just about how China approaches indigenous leaders or Canada's prime minister who has struck a strategic re-engagement or his staff, his chief of staff, or, you know, BC Premier David Eby opposition leaders, China will reach out to municipal leaders. You know, they'll reach out to school, you know, district school board leaders.

They'll approach everyone. And whenever Chinese CCP entities are approaching a leader in Canada, it's bad news. I've just come to that very strong assessment. There's nothing good about it. It's going in a very bad direction. So my message for indigenous leaders is the same to all leaders in Canada up and down the board. I guess I would just challenge that with what, Do you think the harm was in this deal around the small?

If the First Nation ends up with more money and their members end up having more financial stability and with governments federally and provincially cutting their funding towards First Nation communities because of the deficits, what would you, if they're sitting here going like, hey, what was my downside? Like you're worried about kind of this geopolitical issues, but how is this harming us as a small First Nation community? Yeah, so the concern is without speaking about any individual mall owner or person I point to at a Chinese New Year event in the mall, the concern, I can't take out the big picture geopolitical concern because the concern is Canada's sovereignty. If a large commercial footprint, be it a mall sort of near the Delta port on indigenous lands, be it a casino on Richmond municipal lands, be it an office tower in downtown Vancouver. There was a Chinese insurer that once bought like a whole, I believe,

billion dollar office tower deal. Be it, you know, a building where the CIS has its headquarters in Vancouver. There's a story, Aaron, I've been poking into it never reported that CIS. Some people were a little bit worried that a Chinese winery owner had bought the building that CESIS's Vancouver office was located inside. Look, everything from the Soassan Mills Mall to the Chinese winery owner buying a Vancouver building in which CIS has its own office,

it's all a geopolitical sovereignty concern in my book. So it doesn't matter if you're a small indigenous band or your CIS. I think you're all in the same boat. I'm wondering how much is, of the unresolved issues we have around DRIPA, land rights, you've talked about the Indian Act. How are all of these pieces of uncertainty? We know that global geopolitical movements are often done to destabilize a country and destabilize a province and to make these moves. We already

have instability as a consequence of some unresolved issues. How should we think about reconciliation and resolving some of these issues as a national security issue as well. Is that too far and too out there? I just think that like right now from my own experience, the Carney government is really stepping back from treaty interests and a focus on resolving these issues. I think it's become somewhat politically unpopular to resolve some of these issues with the reaction to the Musqueam Agreement.

And then provincially, we see the provincial government's really taking a side step towards a lot of their approaches on reconciliation. and trying to navigate very complex political waters around First Nations reconciliation. Should we view this as like let's resolve this and get clearer processes to protect our national security? Or like how do we put the unresolved reconciliation pieces with this Chinese foreign interference? Yeah, the way you frame it is basically in sort of a half-picked way the way I see it. There can't be like an unending, never getting to the finish line approach to Canada as a nation with a past. Treaties are unresolved.

You know, I say foreign powers working through some domestic political groups and ideologies are working on these fissures. They know very well that these are unresolved issues and they're going to try to use them. So there does need to be an end point. there does need to be an end point to reconciliation where you say, okay, what's the X amount of dollars that, you know, if we want to say the taxpayer broadly across the board has paid in, you know, to this reconciliation bill? Where do sort of the land negotiations end? And at an ending point, are we at a point where Canada is still worth having as a sovereign nation? because if it's completely balkanized, and I use that, you know, term very loosely,

to mean everything from provinces to, you know, political ideologies, regions, or indigenous groups, everyone's saying, you know, the ordeal isn't good and it's not sort of, you know, this province wants to split off, this area wants to split off, what is Canada good for at the end of the day, you know, and other nations, you know, we'll see that and we'll be able to negotiate or attack from positions of strength. So you framed it around the reconciliation, and I see that as a big piece

that there needs to be a goal line and an agreement on how to get there. And of course, that's just like, it's pretty darn easy to say, and it's very hard to do. But I do think there needs to be a finish line and the question of how does all of this agreement benefit Canada's national sovereignty, no matter where you came from, or if you were here first, how does that, you know, how does it benefit Canada needs to be part of it? You mentioned separatism. I'd just be curious. I'm sure you've seen some of the reporting around the Alberta separatists, the people interested in exploring that question, have been meeting with some people in the U.S. What's your reaction to that. Some have called it treasonous. My premier here in BC is called that treasonous

activity. What are your thoughts? Yeah, first to Premier David Eby. I mean, to me, he's like the Kier Starmer of Canada. He lacks popular supports. He started with great promise. And I'll leave it at that. I just don't think that he has a real standing anymore. And of course, he has an elected standing and there's a timeline when he'll need to face the voters. But his rhetoric towards Daniel Smith, I would say, is pretty unforgivable. There's nothing treasonous. Where it gets tricky and sensitive and maybe sketchy and dodgy is there are, you know, various people that may be behind the, you know, the independence or separatist movement. I don't know what their interests are. I don't know how to sort that out. But,

I would like to see Canadians apply an equal standard to, you know, the people in Quebec that were pursuing what they thought was the righteous cause. And, you know, people from government to just readers or consumers of news have to give them a certain respect. Probably the same should be applied to Alberta if we want to be fair. I mean, not to say, you know, here's the door. enjoy your way. I don't want that. But what I recognized, Aaron, from my trip to Alberta recently, you know, to attend an event that Danielle Smith and others were at and sort of political commentators arranged by a podcaster. It was a very well-attended, well-organized event. I talked to a lot of just average Albertans. And I was able to gather, I would say, for the first time, a ground

level understanding that there is, much like some of the indigenous sort of groups, you describe, a sense that we've been treated very badly by the powers that be in Eastern Canada. We're contributing a lot. We're not being recognized. And furthermore, we believe that Eastern Canada and Ottawa is pretty far gone and corrupt. And the U.S. government is probably right to have some very deep concerns about what's going on in Canada. I heard that from average Albertans, and I had to say, Aaron, a lot of it resonated. Again, I want Alberta to stay. I want Canada to be strong and free.

A lot of positive changes need to happen to make that a reality. And as I say, calling, I don't know about certain individuals meeting people down in Washington. I don't think it was illegal or treasonous. I think people in Alberta with the proper sort of guard. Hard rails should be able to speak to people around the world. I mean, tricky question and a tricky issue, but again, let me circle back and finish on Premier David Eby. For him to suggest people are there involved in treason, I mean, he could easily be sort of

the type of person that might be throwing stones in a glass house from some people I talk to because of the people surrounding him. So he should be careful with that kind of language, which I would not apply to him. So I did ask him, I spoke to you privately, and I just asked like, hey, we spoke about Dave Dhabi on the podcast. What are your thoughts? How would I approach a good question on this? And he basically put it to the federal government to develop some of the processes you did mention in the interview to start to address this like a foreign act of registry. And he just basically said, I'm not getting enough information from the federal government on these issues.

And so he's like, I would welcome any of those processes. What's your kind of reaction to that? That would be the same answer that he would have given me privately. And I think I want to be a little bit careful here, but I think there are some things that going on around him that involve, you know, concerns with nominations, concerns with people involved in China's United Front work department groups, community leaders that are not only, you know, approaching people like David Eby to support his campaign,

but are approaching all influential, you know, sort of political candidates across Canada doing the same. So it's not to say that Premier Eby is any worse than any other leader in Canada. It is to say that he is right, that I agree with him, that CESA should be saying a lot more and being a lot more forthcoming. and in terms of other things going on around them, we'll have to wait for a, we'll have to wait for history's judgment a little bit on that. Do you believe that Pierre Poliev is best positioned to make Canada strong and free?

And when I ask that, I just want to recognize you're seeing what the current incumbent government is doing. And if you juxtapose that to what Pierre is willing to say, is he the best alternative today to sort of address some of these issues? from a geopolitical perspective? I do. Again, and Aaron, I want to say, like, I've never been part of a political party in my life. I'm not a partisan. I just strongly believe that even if at this point in my life, I may think, if I had to do a litmus test, would I be sent to right or seen that way by others? Probably would. But that doesn't mean that I would, I've ever supported any political party. But I think that the conservative government was poised to make some positive changes in the 2025 election, even down to, you know, areas where they had the fortitude to say they support, you know, a well-respected Taiwan that is part of the international community.

Pierre Pahliav and the conservatives will say that. That in itself tells me that they're willing to stand up to CCP. And CCP's, you know, deep lawfare and efforts to get everyone, including Mark Carney, to not say such words, to get Mark Carney to stop, you know, liberal MPs from visiting Taiwan. So I just apply that litmus test across the board. And I say that conservatives are the party that has the right answers for Canada's geopolitical, position right now.

My next question is around Michael Chong. This also seems like one that may add some credibility to the conservatives saying that they would be tough on China. What were your reflections on the outcome of that debacle? Yeah, for MP Michael Chan, himself being a prior target of Chinese intelligence, well-documented stories about how he and his family were targeted

by a Chinese diplomat who, you know, my information is, was a confirmed Chinese intelligence actor and the government of Justin Trudeau doing nothing, you know, until the media exposed that. For Michael Chan,

who is a confirmed sort of enemy of China, that's how they see him, for him to bravely say he's going to override what China appears to have seen as an edict now to Canadian MPs that they should not be traveling to Taiwan, for him to then travel to Taiwan was exactly the right message for Canada's sovereignty.

And I remember at the time when there was some diplomatic statement around China saying Canadian officials shouldn't travel to Taiwan and Canada's military shouldn't travel through the waters surrounding Taiwan. I believe I said on X, you know, Canadians don't take direction on those things. And Michael Chan said, I think, very similar words. So my thinking is very aligned with his. I haven't talked to him about his trip to Taiwan, but it's just obvious. The conservative government, I do think, is better aligned with our natural ally,

the United States of America in terms of economic development, trade, and national security. So they are the right leader right now for Canada. I'll say that without being partisan at all. Carney and Eby announced a plan to convert more than 2,200 vacant condo units into affordable housing. Is this a practical housing response or does it risk becoming a bailout for developers and investors? Aaron, I did a podcast with my friend, the American short-selling investor legend. Mark Cohodis, he's one of those investors. analyst that decided that the U.S. subprime mortgage fiasco of 2008 was deeply fraudulent and sort of that housing prices needed to fall as they did in the United States by something

like 40 to 50 percent in certain areas that had been juiced up by fraudulent mortgages. And I argue and assert that the same, a different type of fraudulent mortgage, much of it related to Chinese underground banking of the same type that infiltrated BC casinos, you know, under Premier Christy Clark, gaming minister, Rich Coleman, and etc. The story is well known. I write about it in willful blindness. I say the same types of mortgages are what has pushed Vancouver condo prices up to,

you know, stratospheric levels far beyond Canadian, the average or even high-end Canadian income earners in British Columbia. That's why those condos, I say, are not being bought because China's housing market has taken a swoon in dovetail with Vancouver's condo market. Those condos are being sold in areas with a lot of money flooding in and a lot of migrants flooding in from China. The housing market has fallen internationally and it's fallen in Vancouver for the same reasons. And Mark Cahotis, as a, you know, a great analyst said, responsible policy is letting

those housing prices fall to the level that Canadian income earners can buy them and support them with real mortgages. Mark Carney and David Eby and Gregor Robertson bailing out some 2,000 units with some $3 billion is a scandalous policy from economic and economic and I would say moral and national security at the end of the day, boundaries. It's not going to help Canadian affordability. The houses that Mark Carney buys for those developers to make them whole, that will allow those developers to go back again and ask for more foreign investors to be a bigger part of their market again.

it'll allow the Chinese underground banking to sort of open up again. And the units won't go to the people that need them. They may go to people specialized by the government. I don't think there's any good market argument behind that condo bailout. How can people follow your work? They can come to the bureau.news. That's where I do my independent investigative work. I've done it for three years.

It's rigorous, document, fact-based, and almost 40,000 subscribers now. And I'm glad that you say we got 75,000 viewers in our last podcast. I hope this one gets as much, and people come over to the Bureau because I think a lot of people are recognizing, like you do, that a lot of these conversations and fact-finding discussions don't come up. in mainstream Canadian media, certainly not the type of stuff coming out of Ottawa. So I'm a fan of what you do

and your podcast, and I hope people are a fan of what the Bureau does as well. I am a big fan. Thank you so much, Sam, for coming on today and walking me through this. I understood that there was a threat, but I wanted to make sure that that was grounded in real reporting and real evidence.

So thank you for giving me an in-depth look and listeners, an in-depth look. I really appreciate the work you do, and I think it really helped people understand the seriousness of the work you do when you did share some of those personal anecdotes of the safety and the threats against your life because it just grounds it. And this is what you're doing is real, important, and at times very dangerous. So thank you for all the work you do. Thank you, Aaron.