Justin and PMO Never Lost Much Sleep Over Threats of Chinese Political Interference

Patrick Gossage • April 22, 2024

The rather dismissive attitude shown by the Prime Minister and his staff towards Chinese interference in our democracy at their appearance before the ongoing public inquiry at least is consistent with his dismissive attitude over the years. Fourteen years ago the warnings by of the then new head of CSIS Richard Fadden were ignored.

In a speech and then a CBC interview Fadden alerted that China was aggressively recruiting allies through universities, “funding university clubs that are managed by people operating out of the embassy or consulates.” Chinese authorities also organize demonstrations against the Canadian government in respect to some of Canada's policies concerning China”, Fadden said.


Threats have been in the wind for many years. In 2019, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, an oversight body of MPs and Senators reported that Canada was “vulnerable to foreign actors seeking to interfere with its political and economic processes.” A year later, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service warned that Beijing’s military and intelligence services were also intimidating and threatening critics in Chinese immigrant populations.


Then on Global on November 7 2022 – Sam Cooper on Global made a sensational charge The PRC Gave $250,000 to 11 Political Candidates for the 2019 Election.


In 2023 and Cooper, and Robert Fife of the Globe and Mail were major players in giving Chinese interference major public profile thanks to leaks from CSIS.


The groundbreaking Fife story appeared on Feb. 17, 2023: headlined, CSIS documents reveal Chinese strategy to influence 2021 election “China employed a sophisticated strategy to disrupt Canada’s democracy in the 2021 federal election campaign as Chinese diplomats and their proxies

backed the re-election of Justin Trudeau’s Liberals and worked to defeat Conservative politicians considered to be unfriendly to Beijing.” It detailed that China employed disinformation campaigns and proxies connected to Chinese-Canadian organizations in Vancouver and the Greater Toronto Area, which have large mainland Chinese immigrant communities, to voice opposition to the Conservatives and favour the Trudeau Liberals. In several subsequent articles it even exposed the Trudeau Foundation funding activities of a Chinese businessman. Trudeau was quite dismissive, his security advisor quoted as later saying we will find the leaker.


The Globe’s findings did provoke action by the government when the story of a much-respected Conservative MP surfaced. Foreign Affairs Minister Joly expelled Chinese diplomat Zhao Wei after The Globe reported Beijing targeted Conservative foreign affairs critic Michael Chong and his relatives in Hong Kong to gain leverage over the MP. Mr. Chong had upset China by sponsoring a parliamentary motion to condemn China’s repression of Uyghurs. The Opposition demanded an Inquiry which was forestalled by Trudeau appointing former Governor General David Johnston as special adviser to him on foreign interference. He tabled his report in June 2023. He simultaneously resigned amidst Opposition outcries about his close ties to the PM. Responding to intense pressure, On September 7, 2023 the Government of Canada established the Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference in Federal Electoral Processes and Democratic Institutions. Justice Marie-Josée Hogue, a judge of the Quebec Court of Appeal, was appointed Commissioner.


The Prime Minister’s recent performance as witness to the Inquiry was a textbook on deniability, that secure protection often sought by leaders who do not want to be forced to take positions they do not agree with – in this case that foreign interference is a major problem. His staff provided him a perfect out. Jeremy Broadhurst, who had been briefing the PM on national security said flatly that a warning CSIS briefing memo tabled at the inquiry in February 2023 had not been seen by the PM and that he had never read this kind of note.


It’s tabling made news earlier because of its strong language: "We know the PRC clandestinely and deceptively interfered both in the 2019 and 2021 general elections. In both cases, [foreign interference ... was] pragmatic in nature and focused primarily in supporting those viewed to be either

'pro-PRC' or 'neutral' on issues of interest to the PRC government."


The CSIS document warns that protecting Canadian democratic institutions against foreign interference "will require a shift in the government's perspective and a willingness to take decisive action and impose consequences on perpetrators." It said foreign interference

will persist until it "is viewed as an existential threat to Canadian democracy and governments should forcefully and actively respond."


In his own testimony the next day Trudeau denied any knowledge of the note. In fact he went on to make an extraordinary statement that he does not read all intelligence briefings but relies on his staff to tell him what is important. Clearly he did not want to endorse CSIS’s call to be more

forceful in responding to allegations of interference. The next day in a scrum he said he did read all briefing notes! So is our Prime Minister simply skeptical of the work of our intelligence agency and in fact taking the advice of experts like their retired Fadden himself who said on CBC”s Power

and Politics to remember that “intelligence is not evidence”. Trudeau later said it was his job to question intelligence. He did earlier and was unconvinced when briefed that Don Valley North MP Han Dong at his nominating convention had bused in students allegedly “paid by the Chinese.” Not proven the PM decided. One thinks back to the US intelligence claiming the discovery of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq

which proved wrong. WMD remained a key justification for the second gulf war.


This is not to say that Chinese interference in particular is not present. Several members of the diaspora made dramatic statements at the inquiry of the threats and harassment by Chinese agents they had experienced. These stories had been well covered by the media. Little sympathy

was forthcoming from the government, except in the case of Chong.


So, are there valid ways to control foreign influence? Kenny Chiu, former Conservative MP for the British Columbia riding of Steveston—Richmond East introduced a private members bill to establish the Foreign Influence Registry in November 2021. It would require people to log any activities

undertaken in Canada on behalf of a foreign state. Failing to do so would bring penalties, including prison time. It languished and we’ll see if the idea will surface in the Inquiry’s report.


The registry is frequently seen as a minimum way of controlling foreign influence in Canada. The threat, as we have seen, had been long standing.

Some time ago, the US human rights group Safeguard Defender identified scores of Chinese “police stations” around the world, including in Canada. It alleges they were being used to “harass, threaten, intimidate and force targets to return to China for persecution.” The American

registry—in place since 1938 enabled Federal Bureau of Investigation to lay charges.


In Canada, where secret stations were identified in Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver. Trudeau said that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police was “following up on it.” Chiu’s bill went nowhere and we will see if the registry idea resurfaces in the inquiry.


In the end we are left with Trudeau’s oft repeated blanket denial that foreign influence had any impact on the last two elections. “Nothing we have seen and heard despite, yes, attempts by foreign states to interfere, those elections held in their integrity. They were decided by Canadians,” This appears to be his prime motivator for inaction after years of revelations.


Patrick Gossage Insider Political Views

By Patrick Gossage April 14, 2026
In contrast to US inaction after almost weekly mass killings, it took one horrible shooting rampage at the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal, in 1980, to start the drive for public policy changes around gun control. But years delays between the mass shooting outrage and actual policy to rid the country of assault rifles doomed the eventual gun buyback program. The polytechnique horror was huge news in our relatively massacre-free nation. That December day, 25-year-old Marc Lépine stalked the hallways and classrooms of the École Polytechnique de Montréal with a semi-automatic rifle and murdered 14 women and injured another 13 people before killing himself. A year later, the Coalition for Gun Control was formed to push for stricter gun laws, led by survivors of the Montreal massacre. Later that year, the federal government passed Bill C-17, which imposed safety training and a mandatory waiting period to get a firearms licence-- not an effective means of controlling automatic rifles. Much later, in1996, Parliament passed the Firearms Act, Bill C-68, driven in part by a push for stricter gun laws following the Montreal massacre. The act created a national firearms registry and imposed new rules for obtaining a gun licence, including background checks. The former Conservative government, under prime minister Stephen Harper, abolished the long-gun registry, which it said placed an unnecessary burden on law-abiding gun owners. Quebec subsequently created its own provincial registry to replace it. It took another horrific killing nine years later in Nova Scotia to force Ottawa to take real action on miliary-style guns. On April 18 and 19, 2020, 51-year-old Gabriel Wortman committed multiple shootings and set fires at 16 locations, killing 22 people before he was killed by the RCMP. On May 1, 2020, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, following through on a 2019 campaign promise, announced an immediate ban on some 1,500 makes and models of assault weapons.. The Canadian government sought to follow New Zealand's lead when at the same time it announced the ban it promised a plan to force gun owners to surrender military-style firearms. But while New Zealand acted quickly, in 2019, Ottawa only launched a long awaited buyback program in 2026. In contrast, the government of then New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda announced its firearms buyback program shortly after a white supremacist killed 51 people at two mosques in Christchurch in March, 2019. In order to move quickly, New Zealand set up mobile units where firearm owners could get refunds in exchange for their firearms. They worked hard to get co-operation from gun owners. Meanwhile, here, the firearms industry and individual gun owners vigorously opposed the project, and it was delayed for years. The program was finally initiated this year with little of the sense of urgency it could have had right after the Nova Scotia killings. It has not been going well. In April, the federal public safety minister's office said more than 67,000 assault-style firearms have been declared by 37,869 firearm owners across Canada. That's just under half of the 136,000 firearms the government had budgeted for when it set aside aside $248.6 million for the program. The precise number of banned firearms in Canada is unknown due to the end of the long-gun registry in 2012. There are other deeper problems. Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba have indicated they will not assist with the program, meaning police are not co-operating as in New Zealand. Conservative MPs and firearm owners say the buyback is a wasteful exercise that targets law-abiding citizens. The original gun-control advocacy group, PolySeSouvient, blames “weak political leadership” for what it calls “poor participation” in the compensation program. It looks like Ottawa - to put it mildly - has blown the opportunity to really reduce the number of people-killing guns in this country.
By Patrick Gossage March 12, 2026
One of the major differences between these two men is that Carney understands the value of well-thought-out strategy, abundantly clear in his Davos speech, which laid out one for middle powers to deal with the end of a rules-based international order and the rise of hegemony. Trump's lack of strategic understanding is clear in his bumbling attempts to justify the billion-dollar-a-day Iran war. His overall tactic of “flooding the zone” – mounting a new initiative or major announcement every day, or even several times a day to ensure press and opposition can never catch up. This tactic has served him well – confusing the world and his would-be opponents into submission under a valley of activity and harsh opinions from the leader of the world. Contrast this approach to leadership from Carney. He is systematically building a nation less dependent on US trade by travelling the world building new alliances and trading partners. And in the scare of Australia giving substance to his idea of alliances with middle powers. All laid out in the Davos speech. It is instructive to appreciate how much Trump was irritated by the Davos speech. Carney got a standing ovation; Trump’s rambling lengthy diatribe did not. He won’t soon forget being so upstaged. He surely recognized an intellectual power he could never match. Carney is a realist and pragmatic when he stated recently “We take the world as it is, not as we wish it to be.” He is dealing with the world that is being reshaped by an irrational power-mad president, a world the powerful Stephen Miller said “that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world.” Does Carney sometimes err on the side of supporting Trump likely to ensure that critical talks on free trade and tariffs have some chance of finding a sympathetic ear? Yes; first he seemed to fully support Trump’s war with Iran. He later made his support more nuanced, saying Trump’s actions were against the rules-based international order. He now says we will not get involved unless a NATO ally is threatened. But generally, Carney is highly rational in contrast to Trump’s self-centered irrationality. Take Trump’s bizarre ill-informed letter to the Prime Minister of Norway, who had no role in deciding if he got the Nobel Peace Prize: “I no longer feel obligated to think purely of Peace (he subsequently engaged in an ever expanding war against Iran). He then reiterated his demand for “complete and Total Control, of Greenland. Thank you!”. His late-night rants, complete with caps, on social media show a mind out of control. Thay are dutifully reported on US news media and often astonish with their non sequiturs and nastiness. One of his more unpresidential quotes came as he fingered White House drapes: “I chose these myself. I always liked gold." The big question for Canadians who are more and more disillusioned with the antics of the President: could these two opposite ever sit down and do a deal that works for Canada. The two do text, and Carney has admitted that in private Trump does listen. But there is also evidence that the trade people in the White House do not like Canada, and as Trump has said, we owe our very existence to the US. And we are “difficult”. They have said that the current trade deal is not good for the US and could be trashed entirely and -deals with Mexico and Canada could be separate and the current trilateral deal may be dead.  Canada was at the brink of reducing the heavy sectoral tariffs on steel, aluminum, and lumber when Premier Ford’s unfortunate ads during the Rose Bowl that featured President Reagan speaking against the usefulness of Tariffs led To Trump suspending talks. They only recently resumed. So can our world-renowned businessman and banker hope to sit down with the unpredictable and unstable President and cut a deal? Some hope that if we extend talks, the President, weakened by the midterms, the bad economic fallout from an unpopular war, and the fragmentation of the MAGA movement may be easier to deal with. On the other hand he may badly need a “win,” bullying big concessions out of Canada and reaping so-cabled benefits from a weaker free trade deal. There is a scenario where Trump gets a black eye if Carney simply walks away with the conviction, perhaps easily shared with an increasingly nationalistic and confident Canada that “no deal is better than a bad deal.” In any case, what a decisive and challenging future we face with Canada at play. Can Carney win for Canada against his opposite by losing a deal?"
More Posts