> Justice Marie-Josée Hogue will soon reveal her findings on foreign interference. (Disclosure: I was an invited presenter to the Commission). She has already noted the parties’ defences against penetration do not appear “robust.”
> Her recommendations will be wide-ranging. If she recommends that all parties should be subject to supervision in their conduct of nominations and, more importantly, leaderships, the reaction from Liberals, Conservatives and New Democrats will be unanimous: “No!” They are wrong and the justice would be right. Here’s why.
> The Chinese Ministry of State Security may once again decide to put its thumb on a Canadian leadership contest. It’s first target would likely have been blocking Melanie Joly, as the face of Canada’s increasingly anti-China posture, but Joly has said she is taking a pass this time. China’s project, given the Liberals have rejected any meaningful new protections, will again be able to be conducted in secret with improved chances of success.
> The Liberal Party will still allow permanent residents, not just citizens, only 14-years-old, to join the party online for free … yes, free. Online memberships will still face only an easily deceived vetting process — also true of the other national parties. Liberal national directors voted Thursday to make some gestures toward reform. They were not persuasive.
> The vote will be held March 9. Candidates must stump up $350,000 by Jan. 23 to enter the race, then have just six weeks to campaign. A new member must now have joined by Jan. 27. That gives candidate just two and a bit weeks to find new members.
> The Liberal party is estimated to have a membership of less than 300,000. If together, the candidates sell 50,000 memberships in two weeks, close to impossible, that means the winner, in a six-candidate field, could be chosen with fewer than 50,000 votes.
> Could the Chinese Embassy, all their consulates and Canadian-based, Beijing-controlled organizations round up 25,000 new members, the number to almost guarantee blocking any candidate? Yes, in a matter of days.
> That’s how dangerous this leadership contest could be. Joly publicly pleaded with her party to undertake reforms on foreign interference last week. She was apparently ignored.
> With great indignation all the parties say that as private civil society organizations the government has no business in their internal affairs. However, the parties already accept heavy regulation and reporting requirements on other activities and spending. Why is this acceptable to them? Perhaps because they receive millions of dollars annually in subsidies from the people of Canada. Maybe their irresponsible obduracy on leadership processes might soften if they were tempted by a subsidy for the cost of managing a contest, as unpalatable as that might be to many Canadians.
> But there is a much larger question here. National party executives and directors are not running the Oakville Seniors’ Lawn Bowling Club. They are the governors of organizations who control who gets to compete to be prime minister. The comparison to any other civil society organization is laughable given that power. They determine who leads our government, and have this time heavily tilted the scales.
> The Liberals would have risen in public esteem if they were to have set membership as restricted to 18 year old citizens, who can prove they gave their own money to become a member. And if they had taken the admitted risk of setting a fairer campaign period — I suspect that the NDP could have encouraged not to defeat the government in return for the appropriate policy concession, for example.
> Finally, they could have helped erase the memory of their unbelievably lax approach to foreign interference by creating a vetting process advised by a group knowledgeable about national security warning flags.
> They chose to do none of these things.
> So this race remains wide open to foreign interference and closed to any candidate who is not already a front-runner. This is a blow to Canadian democracy. It will be the most rushed and nontransparent process in the choice of leaders in recent Canadian history.
1 Comment
Archived version: https://archive.fo/qj4dH
Summary:
> Justice Marie-Josée Hogue will soon reveal her findings on foreign interference. (Disclosure: I was an invited presenter to the Commission). She has already noted the parties’ defences against penetration do not appear “robust.”
> Her recommendations will be wide-ranging. If she recommends that all parties should be subject to supervision in their conduct of nominations and, more importantly, leaderships, the reaction from Liberals, Conservatives and New Democrats will be unanimous: “No!” They are wrong and the justice would be right. Here’s why.
> The Chinese Ministry of State Security may once again decide to put its thumb on a Canadian leadership contest. It’s first target would likely have been blocking Melanie Joly, as the face of Canada’s increasingly anti-China posture, but Joly has said she is taking a pass this time. China’s project, given the Liberals have rejected any meaningful new protections, will again be able to be conducted in secret with improved chances of success.
> The Liberal Party will still allow permanent residents, not just citizens, only 14-years-old, to join the party online for free … yes, free. Online memberships will still face only an easily deceived vetting process — also true of the other national parties. Liberal national directors voted Thursday to make some gestures toward reform. They were not persuasive.
> The vote will be held March 9. Candidates must stump up $350,000 by Jan. 23 to enter the race, then have just six weeks to campaign. A new member must now have joined by Jan. 27. That gives candidate just two and a bit weeks to find new members.
> The Liberal party is estimated to have a membership of less than 300,000. If together, the candidates sell 50,000 memberships in two weeks, close to impossible, that means the winner, in a six-candidate field, could be chosen with fewer than 50,000 votes.
> Could the Chinese Embassy, all their consulates and Canadian-based, Beijing-controlled organizations round up 25,000 new members, the number to almost guarantee blocking any candidate? Yes, in a matter of days.
> That’s how dangerous this leadership contest could be. Joly publicly pleaded with her party to undertake reforms on foreign interference last week. She was apparently ignored.
> With great indignation all the parties say that as private civil society organizations the government has no business in their internal affairs. However, the parties already accept heavy regulation and reporting requirements on other activities and spending. Why is this acceptable to them? Perhaps because they receive millions of dollars annually in subsidies from the people of Canada. Maybe their irresponsible obduracy on leadership processes might soften if they were tempted by a subsidy for the cost of managing a contest, as unpalatable as that might be to many Canadians.
> But there is a much larger question here. National party executives and directors are not running the Oakville Seniors’ Lawn Bowling Club. They are the governors of organizations who control who gets to compete to be prime minister. The comparison to any other civil society organization is laughable given that power. They determine who leads our government, and have this time heavily tilted the scales.
> The Liberals would have risen in public esteem if they were to have set membership as restricted to 18 year old citizens, who can prove they gave their own money to become a member. And if they had taken the admitted risk of setting a fairer campaign period — I suspect that the NDP could have encouraged not to defeat the government in return for the appropriate policy concession, for example.
> Finally, they could have helped erase the memory of their unbelievably lax approach to foreign interference by creating a vetting process advised by a group knowledgeable about national security warning flags.
> They chose to do none of these things.
> So this race remains wide open to foreign interference and closed to any candidate who is not already a front-runner. This is a blow to Canadian democracy. It will be the most rushed and nontransparent process in the choice of leaders in recent Canadian history.
Further reading:
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/liberals-will-remove-fraudulent-memberships-as-some-register-their-pets-to-vote-1.7170983
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-steve-mackinnon-drops-liberal-leadership-race-bid/
https://www.hilltimes.com/story/2025/01/11/liberal-leadership-candidates-can-pay-350000-entry-fee-in-instalments-but-unclear-if-any-portion-is-refundable/447298/
https://nationalnewswatch.com/2025/01/11/former-b-c-premier-says-she-misspoke-when-claiming-she-was-never-a-conservative
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/musk-canada-poilievre-trudeau-influence-1.7426954
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jan/12/canada-election-elon-musk-justin-trudeau
https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/9.6609234
https://www.cp24.com/news/canada/2025/01/11/liberal-officials-say-its-essential-their-next-party-leader-is-bilingual/
Other news:
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/former-pm-chretien-says-liberal-party-must-move-back-to-radical-centre-1.7172306
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/everything-is-on-the-table-joly-won-t-rule-out-cutting-off-energy-exports-to-u-s-in-face-of-trump-tariff-threat-1.7172631
https://nationalnewswatch.com/2025/01/12/with-conservatives-promising-to-defund-could-the-next-election-kill-the-cbc
https://nationalnewswatch.com/2025/01/12/quebec-liberals-at-a-crossroads-as-leadership-race-kicks-off-monday
https://apnews.com/article/canada-trump-chretien-51st-state-ad9749047d0b627eed56be22f43ea7cd
!ping Can