A lawsuit will not likely reverse the damage already done to Han Dong. A warm caucus welcome would be a good place to start.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on February 3, 2025.

OTTAWA—Han Dong should be quickly welcomed back into the Liberal caucus with open arms.

He was completely exonerated by the final report of the Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference headed by Justice Marie-Josée Hogue.

Dong posted a letter following the report release last week which said the following: “I am relieved that Justice Hogue ‘did not see evidence of parliamentarians conspiring with foreign states against Canada.’”

Dong also expressed that he was “heartened by Justice Hogue’s definitive conclusions about the very public allegations that have been made against me specifically. I have always maintained that I called for the release of the Two Michaels at every opportunity. I am grateful for Justice Hogue’s unequivocal confirmation that ‘the classified information corroborates Mr. Dong’s denial of the allegation that he suggested the PRC [People’s Republic of China] should hold off releasing Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor.’”

Dong is seeking an apology from Global, Corus and the Global newscaster who originally broke the allegations story.

In her report, Hogue made it clear that no foreign government posed a threat to elections in Canada. She found the bigger threat to democracy is the spread of disinformation and misinformation in media and on social networks. Ironically, it was spread of just such mis/disinformation that led to the establishment of the inquiry in the first place.

Hogue’s 16-month investigation involved testimony from more than 150 witnesses, resulting in seven volumes of recommendations. More than half of them should be implemented before the next election.

Some of the recommendations involved changes to party nomination processes, and the necessity for leaders to receive security briefings. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre is the only current leader who refuses to get security clearance for those briefings, on the grounds that it might affect his ability to speak freely on issues.

Hogue also discredited the conclusions of a report prepared by the parliamentary committee tasked with reviewing foreign influence on parliamentarians.

Last June, in the middle of the Hogue Inquiry, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians published a report based on intelligence documents that accused unnamed parliamentarians of “semi-wittingly” or “wittingly” assisting foreign government attempts to interfere in the Canadian democratic process.

Hogue said the parliamentarians came to the wrong conclusion, and suggested “the frailties of intelligence make it dangerous to rely on.”

Hogue’s report, because it largely debunked the political hysteria surrounding the role of parliamentarians as traitors, received little coverage. Likewise, the exoneration of Dong was buried deep in the news cycle.

The initial allegations made front-page news across the country, and the crisis prompted his departure from the Liberal caucus while the investigation was ongoing.

Hogue identified shortcomings in the flow of information between federal government departments involved in the issue. But since when has bureaucracy not been accused of a laborious system to manage the flow of information? When dealing with classified information, the flow can be even more tedious.

Because the report largely discounts the role of foreign governments in Canadian elections, we can expect to hear very little on this issue in the near future.

But what the Hogue report does expose is an uneasy willingness to jump on the bandwagon when it comes to the dealings of non-white Members of Parliament.

No MP has ever been accused of cozying up to the United States, even though we have a friendship group pf parliamentarians that connects on a regular basis. MPs with good connections in Washington are considered an asset.

Why do we not say the same thing about MPs with good connections in other countries? Why is it considered perfectly normal to work in tandem with the United States, but positively traitorous to be well-connected in the People’s Republic of China?

Is racism a factor of bias in some of our intelligence-gathering? Are we as stringent with European connections as we are with those of the Asia-Pacific?

Given the definitive conclusions of the Hogue report, it is time to right a wrong.

It is one thing to amend party regulations to ensure tighter control on who gets to vote. But what are the consequences for false information that targets a hardworking Member of Parliament like Dong?

Dong is free to go the legal route, as he seems to have a solid case for a libel suit. I successfully sued members of the media twice in my political career.

But a lawsuit will not likely reverse the damage already done to Dong. A warm caucus welcome would be a good place to start.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

The fallout from the parliamentary foreign activity report did nothing to re-establish Canadians’ trust in the system.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 17, 2024.

OTTAWA–The cloud of suspicion hanging over Members of Parliament was partly lifted by Green Party Leader Elizabeth May last week.

May spoke out at a lengthy press conference on June 11 after having read the classified document on parliamentary foreign activity produced by the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP).

May said she was “relieved” to read that, in her opinion, none of the “few” Members of Parliament mentioned in the document are being disloyal to Canada.

There was one former MP who knowingly colluded with a foreign government, but their identity was not revealed. May stated that her reading of the report concluded that no current MPs were involved in any malfeasance.

May asked, “are there currently MPs sitting with us in the Chamber who would set out knowingly to sell Canada out for personal benefit? If there are, there’s no evidence of that in the full report.”

She urged other party leaders to read the report, and to draw their own conclusions.

Reports of the document state that “the committee has also seen troubling intelligence that some parliamentarians are, in the words of the intelligence services, ‘witting or semi-witting’ participants in the efforts of foreign states to interfere in our politics.”

New Democratic Party Leader Jagmeet Singh, who also read the report, said he was even more concerned after reading it, and urged Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre to do the same. The current leader of the opposition refuses to seek the security clearance required to read the document.

Singh also questioned whether Poilievre was refusing to read the document because it included references to potential foreign influence in the Conservative leader’s own party leadership bid. The NSICOP report references interference by Indian and Chinese governments in the Conservative leadership race.

Singh said: “In short, there are a number of MPs who have knowingly provided help to foreign governments, some to the detriment of Canada and Canadians.” CBC News later reported that Singh’s office would not confirm if he was referring to current sitting MPs.

Meanwhile, with no specifics on which Members of Parliament have been named, the House of Commons agreed on June 11 to a Bloc Québécois motion to refer the parliamentary report to the public inquiry into foreign interference.

That inquiry, led by Commissioner Marie-Josée Hogue, is already reviewing the issues surrounding foreign election-meddling allegations.

Hogue produced her interim report last month, which said there is evidence of foreign interference, but the integrity of Canada’s electoral system remains intact.

The commissioner also concluded that “vigorous measures” must be taken to re-establish Canadians’ trust in the system after unveiling evidence that foreign governments did interfere in the elections of 2019 and 2021, leaving “a stain on our electoral process.”

The fallout from the NSICOP report did nothing to re-establish Canadians’ trust in the system. Instead, the report left the impression that there were multiple Members of Parliament knowingly sharing confidential information with foreign influencers.

Poilievre and his Alberta-based attack dog Michael Cooper both called on the prime minister to immediately release the names of all members cited in the document.

Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc told a parliamentary committee that it would be illegal to release names. “I am not going to violate the Security of Information Act, and risk prosecution for a political stunt,” he said.

He, too, encouraged Poilievre to get full security clearance so the Conservative leader could read the report, and decide for himself what level of foreign influence has affected our democracy and electoral process.

Poilievre refuses to read the report himself, claiming that to do so would prevent him from asking pertinent questions. The Conservative leader says clearance would limit his capacity to comment on issues, since top-secret material is usually only for the eyes of the security-cleared reader.

But his refusal to gather all the data begs the question: if Poilievre were to win the election, would he be able to become prime minister without a full security clearance? And if so, why would he want to make decisions without being in possession of all the facts?

Wouldn’t it make more sense for a leader to gather as much background as possible before deciding on what direction s/he would be taking on the foreign interference question?

Poilievre is simply demanding that the prime minister name names. He cares not for illegality, or due process.

His insouciance really makes you wonder what kind of prime minister he would be.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.