Foreign interference inquiry commissioner Marie-Josée Hogue has rejected the Conservatives’ appeal requesting full standing in the upcoming public inquiry examining China’s election interference in Canada. She also dismissed concerns from a human rights coalition about granting standing to three individuals accused of ties to the Chinese regime.
“I concluded that the CPC has a direct and substantial interest in the work of the Commission, but that this interest is of a general nature only,” Justice Hogue wrote. Additionally, she expressed the belief that the CPC wouldn’t need to cross-examine witnesses or access non-public documents to make its “necessary contribution” to the inquiry.
Justice Hogue defended her decision, saying her “Terms of Reference concern the conduct of the Government of Canada rather than that of the Liberal Party.”
The Conservatives maintain the decision to deny them full standing “ruins” the inquiry’s credibility.
“The Conservative Party was the prime victim of foreign interference in the previous elections according to leaked documents. Excluding the Conservative Party from having full standing on the impact of foreign interference while allowing the Trudeau government to participate fully makes the result of the commission beyond repair.”
Human Rights Coalition
Justice Hogue has extended full standing to MP Han Dong and Markham, Ont., deputy mayor Michael Chan, a former Ontario cabinet minister with the provincial Liberal government. The two are central to allegations surrounding China’s interference in Canada’s 2019 and 2021 federal elections, which led to the launch of the public inquiry. Mr. Dong and Mr. Chan have both denied allegations of inappropriate ties to the Chinese Consulate in Canada.Meanwhile, five out of a coalition of eight human rights advocacy groups, collectively referred to as the Human Rights Coalition, which has standing in the inquiry, have urged Justice Hogue to reconsider her decision to grant full standing to Mr. Dong and Mr. Chan and intervener status to Sen. Yuen Pau Woo. The coalition expressed concerns about their possible links to and support for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
The coalition seeks to limit Mr. Chan and Mr. Dong’s standing in the factual phase of the inquiry to the allegations of Chinese interference in the 2019 and 2021 general elections. This includes denying them access to other witnesses’ testimony, limiting their ability to interrogate witnesses, and barring participation in hearings beyond the specified allegations. Regarding Mr. Woo, Justice Hogue noted that while the coalition didn’t specify its desired recourse, it implied a call for the revocation of his intervener standing.
Justice Hogue acknowledged the coalition’s claim that certain individuals expressed “concerns about being questioned by Mr. Dong and Mr. Chan,” but stuck to her decision.
“These concerns are important, but they are addressed through procedures set out in the Commission’s Rules of Procedure and do not warrant reconsideration of the Decision on Standing,” she wrote.
She noted that since the commission is an “independent and impartial body,” it should not limit the standing of Mr. Chan, Mr. Dong, or Sen. Woo based on allegations of potential links to or support for China or the CCP. She added that the commissioner cannot make findings of fact or draw conclusions before hearing the evidence.
“If judge expects us, as a witness, to be examined or cross examined by those 3 individuals who are allegedly tied up with CCP regime, she has no idea on the essence of this matter,” Mr. Tohti wrote.
Allegations
Mr. Dong resigned from the Liberal caucus to sit as an Independent MP in March after a Global News report, citing anonymous national security sources, accused him of inappropriate ties to the Chinese Consulate in Toronto.Mr. Dong and Mr. Chan didn’t respond to inquiries from The Epoch Times. In a Dec. 13 response to inquiries regarding concerns raised by the human rights advocacy group, Mr. Woo told The Epoch Times, “Those who have expressed concern about my participation should spell out publicly what specifically they object to.”