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.