Canada’s Catherine McKenna, paid $1.6M annually by China to advance its authoritarian agenda—including gulags and surveillance—asked only one soft human rights question about LGBTI protections in a UN forum, while Western nations pressed on torture, disappearances, and ethnic abuses. Expert Gordon Cheng warns Xi Jinping’s WTO-violating policies, like Made in China 2025, stifle global trade fairness, yet Canada’s engagement ignores economic coercion and veterans’ funding gaps. McKenna’s role highlights a troubling trend: Western leaders either normalize or avoid confronting China’s repression, undermining democratic principles while non-market economies exploit loopholes like USMCA reviews. [Automatically generated summary]
Tonight, the countries of the world put their toughest human rights questions to China.
You'll never guess what Canada asked.
It's November 6th, and this is the Ezra LeVant Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're a biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer.
You come here once a year with a sign, and you feel morally superior.
The only thing I have to say to the government for why I publish it is because it's my bloody right to do so.
Yesterday I showed you the shocking news of Catherine McKenna serving as the vice chair of a committee of the government of the People's Republic of China.
That's her on their government committee.
This isn't an international committee.
This is not a bilateral Canada-China cooperation committee.
That would be fine.
This is China's own government agency whose explicit mission is to achieve China's national interests, specifically the Communist Party's five-year plan.
It's right in their charter.
I've never heard of such a thing of you, of a Canadian government minister working for a foreign country's government.
I mean, of course, it just adds to the crazy that Canadian taxpayers gave China $1.6 million a year for the privilege of McKenna working for them, but, you know, we pay them, just to be clear.
But that's just money.
What about the ethics of having a Canadian cabinet minister working for the Communist Party of China?
It's unbelievable.
And by the way, I haven't seen this reported anywhere else, have you?
But it all sort of makes sense.
I mean, after all, China is Justin Trudeau's favorite country.
There's a level of admiration I actually have for China because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to actually turn their economy around on a dime.
Their basic dictatorship.
Now, I have some more news for you today.
It's about human rights, something that Justin Trudeau says he cares about.
I mean, isn't that part of what being a liberal means?
Historically, at least, I think it does.
Liberal, the word, comes from the same Latin root as the word liberties, civil liberties.
It's something China has a lot of problems with.
They're the world's largest dictatorship.
They're a communist regime.
And although they no longer use many communist economic models, they certainly use communist methods of controlling people, spying on people, imprisoning people for political crimes, banning dissent, whether it's in the media or in politics or even religion.
There's no opposition party in China, of course.
There's no grassroots political groups.
The Falun Gong religious sect, which was briefly quite popular even amongst Communist Party members, it scared the dictatorship so bad one day because they had this mass religious gathering that hadn't been detected by the regime.
So it was banned.
They just banned it out of panic.
I mean, remember, China is the country that sent tanks to dry over students having a democracy protest in the city square of Beijing.
So yeah, how do you reconcile being a liberal and a China lover?
And by China lover, I don't mean loving the people or the culture or the language or the food.
If that's the definition, well, then I'm a China lover.
With Trudeau, though, he literally loves their dictatorship.
You heard him.
He loves their basic dictatorship.
He loves the worst thing about China.
He loves their secret police.
He loves their prison wardens.
He loves their spy systems.
He loves their gulags.
Sorry, if you love that part of China, their basic dictatorship, I guess that's the same way Trudeau loves that part of Cuba.
You actually hate the Chinese people, don't you?
Which brings me to our news today.
It's about this group, a human rights-oriented NGO called UPR, which stands for Universal Periodic Review.
So it's a periodic review of human rights around the world.
They try to press governments to be more humane.
They focus on civil liberties, so they're one of the good guys.
And they try to work with the UN and their functions.
They're based in Geneva, where the human rights machine or the UN.
It's an uphill battle for them, but good for them.
Okay, so let's focus on one narrow thing they do.
They ask countries to put questions about human rights.
And of course, we're interested today in China.
So this is a list of questions proposed by different countries for China.
This is a document from this NGO called UPR.
Okay, are you with me so far?
Now, as you saw briefly there, countries put their advanced questions to China.
So they're giving them notice of the questions they're going to ask China about human rights.
So let's just start with the very first one on that list there, which happens to be Uruguay, which is a country in South America.
So Uruguay would like to know, I'm just quoting here, about what efforts have been made in the last years to ensure human rights defenders, journalists, and other civil society actors can carry out their work in a safe environment without fear of reprisals.
All right, that's not a bad question.
I mean, it's a bit limited in scope, but fair enough.
Okay, good question.
So Uruguay just had one question for China.
All right, let's keep going down the list, okay?
Next, as you can see, I'm just scrolling down here, it's the United Kingdom.
Now, I don't propose to go through all of it.
It's too long.
But if you scroll through it slowly, you can see they ask about China's gulags in Xinjiang province.
They ask about the ethnic minority called the Uyghurs.
One of their questions is to quote, provide statistics on the numbers of those held involuntarily in the past five years.
That's a prickly question, isn't it?
That's a good question.
The next question they have, by the way, is about Tibet.
I think that's good.
The next question, look at that.
They list a group of journalists and human rights activists by name, and they demand their release without delay.
That's getting pretty specific when you're naming actual journalists.
Then they get a bit more general.
This is the United Kingdom, by the way.
They ask about the full range of human rights in China, including, but not limited to, LGBT plus rights, women's rights and disability rights.
All right, now frankly, I don't think those are as acute in China as elsewhere.
I mean, women aren't in gender apartheid in China like they are in Saudi Arabia or Iran.
My own sense is that disability rights, I mean, it's more of a question of poverty and the lack of resources to help people in China more than active discrimination.
I don't know about gay rights in China.
I sense it's likely more a cultural issue than a political issue, but I just don't know.
When I think of gay rights, again, I think of places where they stone gays to death, mainly Muslim countries.
I don't think they do that in China.
But fair enough, it's a question.
And then the last point, as you can see, this is the United Kingdom, outright accusing China of torture and extrajudicial punishments.
That is pretty heavy duty.
That's how you ask a tough question at the United Nations, or in this case, through an NGO affiliated to the UN.
That's not bad work, would you agree?
Good for the UK.
Now, I'm not going to go through all the questions from all the countries.
You see that the Netherlands are next there.
Now, similar questions, less accusatory than the Brits, but covering the basis.
Free speech, freedom for minorities, the rule of law.
They talk about the gay rights issue too.
I like the Swedish questions.
Very plain, to the point.
What actions will the government of the PRC, that's the People's Republic of China, take to remove restrictions on freedom of expression and information?
That's a good one.
There's some questions about domestic violence.
Again, my own sense is that state violence is a bigger problem than domestic violence.
But look, I'm glad the Swedes are asking the questions, aren't you?
As you can imagine, Donald Trump's America just crushes it.
Tough, smart, detailed questions, asking about ethnic groups like the Uyghurs and the Tibetans, asking about the Falun Gong, good for them.
Asking about how China is undermining Hong Kong.
These are great questions.
USA fighting for freedom, that's what they do.
Now I'm going to skip ahead, if you don't mind.
There's too many questions, too many countries to go through them all.
Most Western countries did a variation on the themes I've shown you so far, right?
But let's look at some third world hellholes to paraphrase Donald Trump.
Let's look at Pakistan.
Get ready to laugh or to cry.
And by the way, I'm going to end with Canada if you're wondering where I'm going with this.
But here's Pakistan.
I'm going to read it all, every word, okay?
This is them holding Toronto to account.
After the second cycle of UPR, China has published an assessment report on the implementation of the National Human Rights Action Plan of China, 2012 to 2015, and the National Human Rights Action Plan of China, 2016 to 2020.
What is the role of NGOs in drafting and implementing the National Human Rights Action Plan?
Oh boy, that's a tough question.
You got them there.
Here, let me read some more.
This gets gross here.
China has made tremendous achievements in implementing the right to development.
Could China share a relevant experience?
And then here's the last one.
It is understood that China will lift the entire impoverished population in rural areas out of poverty under current standards by 2020.
What measures has China taken to ensure the legalization of this goal?
Oh my God.
China, what's it like to be so awesome?
I have a question for, I'm from Pakistan, I have a question for China.
How did you get to be so awesome?
That's Pakistan.
It's obviously dominated by China in many ways as a country.
But more to the point, it's as bad as China in human rights, right?
It's a bullying, authoritarian, racist country that commits terrorism against foreigners and its own people.
So it's super tough questions for China.
I basically, can you tell us how wonderful you are?
It wouldn't surprise me if the questions were actually written by China.
I'm not even kidding.
Let's just look at one more authoritarian regime called Belarus.
That's really the last Stalinist country in Europe.
Here's our questions.
What policies has China adopted in recent years to build network infrastructure and enable the internet to benefit the people and improve their livelihood?
And is the proportion of ethnic minority officials in China equal to the proportion of their population in the total population?
Pretty weak, pretty meek.
Hey, how's your internet going?
Yeah, I don't think that's the number one human rights issue in China.
By the way, I don't know if you saw there, Switzerland was next, and they're pretty awesome.
Questions about disappeared booksellers, questions about the death penalty, and let me read just one, okay?
With respect to the social credit system, what are the legal and judicial safeguards in place to protect citizens' rights to privacy and freedom of expression?
Are citizens able to access the data collected about themselves and eventually contest punitive measures resulting from low scores?
Now, in case you haven't heard, that's a new system where China collects every piece of information about you.
Everything from your internet searches to your traffic tickets and gives you a score.
That's what they call your social credit.
And you get rights and punishments that flow from your score.
It is a total Orwellian surveillance state, and it goes into a database that's your social credit.
Now, it's probably coming here in five years, but it's already there.
Switzerland's on the file, and I'm glad they are, aren't you?
Okay, so we see two approaches here.
The Western liberal democracies asking tough, but I think fair questions of China.
I'd like the answers to them.
And then the third world rumps, the failed states, the hellholes, to misquote Trump, like Pakistan and Belarus, and there are a few others asking meek or softball questions that aren't really even questions.
Okay, so where do you think Canada comes down?
Just go through our charter, right?
Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom of assembly, the right to vote, things like that.
Or get a little pricklier, phrase it about the gulags and police making people disappear.
On any of that, where do you think Canada stands on any of that?
Those are all things covered by other countries I showed you.
Okay, I'm going to show you now.
I'm going to read it in full.
Here is the full Canadian entry.
That's it.
What steps is China taking to grant equal marriage and family protections to LGBTI, I don't know what I stands for, couples in its new civil code.
So that's it.
You just got one question about gay marriage, but not even gay marriage in reality, just in some meaningless piece of paper called a civil code, not even going after actual discrimination or violence, just looking for some press release by China really.
That's it?
Is that the most pressing civil rights issue in China today?
A country with no press freedom, no religious freedom, no equal rights for ethnic minorities, a country where the political party, the communists, control the police and the courts, a country with no rule of law, no property rights, no personal rights, a country with gulags and torture and murder.
Trudeau wants to know when they're going to pass their gay marriage bill.
I don't know what, so that maybe a gay couple in a political prison, because they were thrown there because they were complaining against Mao, they can finally get married in prison while they're being tortured.
You know it's illegal in China to have a gay pride protest because it's illegal in China to have any protest march of any stripe.
There's no freedom of assembly.
There's no freedom of speech.
There's no political freedom.
Trudeau being an idiot on our streets, like that picture there, that's illegal in China, whether you're gay or straight.
Trudeau doesn't care.
I'm sure, let's play that clip one more time about Trudeau and China.
There's a level of admiration I actually have for China because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to actually turn their economy around on a dime.
Yeah, Justin Trudeau doesn't love China, and he doesn't love the Chinese people.
He loves the basic dictatorship of China.
You heard it himself.
And of course, he loves himself.
China's Retrenchment Strategy00:15:31
stay with us for more.
We've had very good discussions with China.
We're getting much closer to doing something.
They very much want to make a deal.
As you know, their economy went way down since we've been doing this skirmish.
I spoke with President Xi yesterday.
They very much want to make a deal.
I think we'll make a deal with China, and I think it'll be a very fair deal for everybody, but it will be a good deal for the United States.
Well, there's Donald Trump.
It's very interesting watching him deal with China, so different from other governments, especially our own Canadian government.
Do you recall that our ambassador to China basically said more, more, more when asked what terms he wants with China?
He'll take any deal.
Donald Trump seems to be pushing China away, making them want a deal more than he appears to want it.
Well, let's talk to an expert on the subject, someone we've been talking to about China's economy and military for quite some time, our good friend Gordon Cheng, who's a columnist with The Daily Beast and the author of a book. titled The Coming Collapse of China.
Gordon, great to see you again.
Thanks for being here.
What do you make of Donald Trump basically announcing that China wants a deal more than he does?
Well, this is good news, Ezra, because for four decades, the U.S. has been chasing China for all sorts of things, including trade deals.
The problem with any trade deal with Beijing, especially right now, is that the Chinese are not going to honor it.
And so really, these are one-way agreements.
And so I think what Trump is really trying to do, and we've seen this from the beginning of this year, is disentangle the American and Chinese economies.
This really means that we're not going to be as hostage to Beijing as we have been in the past.
So although, you know, this is going to be unfortunate, nonetheless, this is, I think, what absolutely is required right now, because after four decades, we've seen that we cannot come to terms with China, especially under Xi Jinping, the current ruler.
I understand the rationale for America's engagement policy.
I mean, it was Nixon and it was Kissinger who came up with the idea of triangulating against Stalin about having a counterweight to the Soviets.
And that was when China had a military force, a population, but was not an economic juggernaut.
Things have certainly changed, haven't they?
I mean, I think history may bear out that decision made 40 years ago.
But that dynamic really isn't at play today, is it?
No, it isn't.
You know, after the end of the Cold War, the rationale for relations with China really just changed.
You know, right now, what we're seeing is China stealing hundreds of billions of dollars of U.S. intellectual property each year.
This is important because we have an innovation-based economy.
And if we cannot commercialize our innovation, we just don't have very much of an economy.
And that's what this quote-unquote trade war really is about.
And President Trump's tariffs are imposed under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 as a remedy for intellectual property theft.
So, you know, regardless of what one thinks about trade, no one can be in favor of Chinese crime.
Right.
Well, and it's so ubiquitous in China.
Counterfeits, knockoffs, they're often of, you know, retail brands.
There's fake Starbucks.
There's clothing, expensive clothing brands.
There's knockoffs everywhere.
That's almost, I won't say it's amusing, but it feels small time.
But of course, there's larger scale ripoffs of the actual high-tech economy, technology that's not trivial or laughable.
It puts companies out of business.
Well, it does, and it puts countries out of business.
And really, this is what we have to focus in on.
When you look at all intellectual property theft, you know, as you say, knocking off a Starbucks is not a mortal wound to the U.S. economy.
Now, the one thing that we should point out is that there's so much of that that the numbers are actually quite big, even for the trivial stuff.
But you're absolutely right that we should be concerned about the taking of innovation, because that's where the future of the 21st century is.
And we cannot allow a country just to steal it because that gives them an enormous competitive advantage.
And that's just unacceptable.
I just read your column from a few days ago in the national interest.
Let me quote the title of it, The Trump Curveball.
This is what China Didn't Expect.
I want to get back to your main thesis in that column in a moment, but you describe things in there that I haven't seen reported widely, namely that President Xi is moving away from liberalization and free marketization and seems to be retrenching in that command and control economy.
Can you give our viewers some details about that, please?
Yeah, one of the most important things is that he's, first of all, shutting off the market to foreign companies in a number of different ways.
These are non-tariff barriers.
So, for instance, there's cybersecurity law, national security law.
These prejudice foreign companies.
He's been using, for instance, law enforcement actions in a discriminatory manner.
You know, as China is putting together large state enterprises back into formal monopolies, he's going after foreign companies under the anti-monopoly law.
This is just hideous.
But the most important thing is when you start looking at state industrial policy, the Made in China 2025 initiative, where China seeks dominance in 10, now 11 critical sectors.
So this is where the future of the global economy is.
And China, through means which are violating their World Trade Organization obligations, are doing a number of things to basically control 5G, wireless, robotics, artificial intelligence, semiconductors, all the rest of it.
So this is where our critical focus should be.
That's a lot more serious than just knocking off a Ralph Lauren polo shirt.
I mean, if you're getting the lead of AI or 5G technology, that truly will own the 21st century.
I want to ask you, I mean, you and I have talked about Trump and China since the early days of his administration.
We were talking then about punishing China's support for North Korea.
I know one of the worries you and I had talked about was that by tackling China's economy, America would possibly be doing great damage to itself because they're great trading partners.
It doesn't seem to have happened.
Trump has large tariffs on China.
It's in a way blacklisting China.
And the American economy seems to be quite strong.
Maybe it could be stronger, but it's certainly booming.
Is China actually hurting?
Does China feel like it's losing the trade war?
That's how Trump is projecting it.
I want to believe Trump, but he uses hyperbole from time to time.
Is China actually feeling some economic pain in their relationship with Trump's America?
I think that it is.
And part of it is because the U.S. tariffs are coming at a time where the Chinese economy was already slowing.
So right now, Beijing, I think, is maybe not in a panic, but in a near panic about what is occurring to the economy.
You know, at this particular time, it's very hard to figure out China because the numbers coming out don't make sense.
But there's a clear notion that China is slowing down.
And large part of it is because of the tariffs that President Trump has been imposing.
This is going to be important because there's going to be much more effect on the tariffs going forward because the Chinese economy has been able to get through because they accelerated a lot of sales to the U.S. before the tariffs went into place.
In other words, they were borrowing from the future in order to make the present look better.
That future is coming right now at fast speed for China.
And so that means that they're going to have some very, very difficult years ahead as this trade war, quote unquote, continues.
I want to ask you a question about how America negotiates with China.
Canada just came through the end of a one-year negotiation with the U.S. trade representative redoing NAFTA.
And I don't think any observer would say anything other than Canada got a haircut.
I mean, we at best held the line on a few items and we gave up things.
I happen to think that the things we gave up are better for the economy.
But we got roughed up by that U.S. trade rep. But here's the thing, Gordon, Canada and the United States both respect the rule of law.
They're both high trust societies.
And even if we could quarrel over details, both sides know that the new trade deal will pretty much be honored in good faith.
How does the U.S. trade rep, who's used to dealing with countries like the United Kingdom and the European Union countries and Canada, how do you even engage with Chinese negotiators?
Because even if they are negotiating in good faith, which is a question with the dictatorship, how do you know it can be given effect through courts, through taxes, through any of the infrastructure of the state?
How do you even do a deal with a country that doesn't have an independent judiciary, for example?
Yeah, I don't think that you can, Ezra.
And that really is the critical point.
You know, we have seen so many trade arrangements with China, whether bilateral or multilateral, and Beijing has not honored them.
And the breaches have been material and significant, not just minor things.
And as you point out, you don't have recourse to the courts in China because there are not any independent courts.
And this is a, you know, China's a country that just doesn't believe in the notion of comparative advantage, which is the basis of the global trading system.
So you have an extraordinarily selfish mentality.
And to make it all worse, you've got Xi Jinping, who actually believes in this sort of a state-dominated economy, taking China in a regressive direction.
So this is really bad news, not only for us, but for the Chinese as well, because we know what a Maoist type economy, a Maoist type theology has actually done to China in the past.
That scares me.
I mean, I don't want to be naive with regards to China, and I think that Trump's principled disengagement, I'm going to use that phrase, is wise.
But what scares me is if President Xi actually takes China back to the bad old days, because despite all our quarrels with China, producing wealth and prosperity and lifting people out of mass poverty is a good thing, no matter where you are on the spectrum.
I think that's my own view.
And I'm scared, reading your piece in the National Interest, of indications that the good things that were there amidst the bad things are being set back.
I hope that—does President Xi, does he believe in at least economic liberalism?
Put aside the political liberalism.
No, he doesn't?
I don't think so.
You know, I don't know what's in his head, Ezra, but I do know what he's doing.
And across the board, whether we're talking access to the Chinese market or the role of state enterprises or the role of the state in the financial markets, we see clear regressive moves across the board.
And this is not just this year.
This has really been throughout Xi Jinping's tenure, which started at the end of 2012.
And this is ironic because next month, China celebrates the 40th anniversary of the start of the reform era.
But China's not reforming.
It is closing itself up and it's going in a Stalinist, Maoist type of economy.
And this is a concern because obviously it's not going to be good for foreign competitors.
But the biggest victims, of course, are the Chinese themselves.
Yeah, that's very true.
What amateur study I've made of the Cultural Revolution, the Great Leap Forward, is so terrifying and so heartbreaking.
Any movement away from that Maoist past is a good thing.
And it scares me a little bit to hear that there's tendencies to regress.
I have one last question for you, being very generous with your time.
I always learn so much from you, and I thank you for your expertise.
I referenced the new Canada-U.S.-Mexico revised trade deal, the revised NAFTA.
There was a provision there that I think surprised a number of people, that the United States retains some sort of, I'm not going to say veto power, but they have the right to information and they have the to review Canadian trade deals with a non-market country.
I think they obviously were referring to China.
I don't know who else they could mean.
Canada accepted this.
Some people said, oh, this is a violation of Canadian sovereignty.
But it's obvious the United States is worried that Canada might be doing some deals with China that are contrary to America's interest and that they want the right to know about.
Do you have any comments?
Have you heard about this provision?
Do you know anything about it?
This is really important.
And it's not a violation of Canadian sovereignty if Ottawa agrees to it.
Of course.
You know, all trade agreements have restrictions, and that's the reason why you have agreements.
So the United States and Mexico have also agreed to restrictions on their free action.
So, you know, to say this is a violation of Canadian sovereignty is ludicrous.
Right.
This is important because what the Trump administration is saying is that, yeah, we can trade among ourselves because we have open economies, but you can't allow a closed economy like China to prey upon free economies like ours.
And so I think it's absolutely appropriate for that provision to be in a USMCA, the successor to NAFTA.
Well, that's a great point.
I mean, I agree with you.
If we agreed to it, our duly elected government agreed to it.
It is not a violation of our sovereignty, but it certainly is a new requirement from our great ally, which I think shows their concern.
Well, listen, Gordon, it's great to have you as always.
I could talk with you all day, but I know you have other demands on your time.
I look forward to our next talk.
And who knows, maybe President Trump's prediction will come to pass and there will be some improvement in the bilateral relationship.
And hopefully, not only will it be good for America, but hopefully it will help coax China on the right path too.
Maybe we could talk about that as the news develops.
Thanks very much, Ezra.
Great to see you again.
Well, thank you so much.
China Council Controversy00:04:49
That's our friend Gordon Cheng.
He's a columnist with The Daily Beast.
His book is called The Coming Collapse of China.
And may I recommend his most recent article in the national interest called The Trump Curveball.
This is what China Didn't Expect.
Always an education to talk to Gordon.
Stay with us.
More ahead on The Rebel.
Hey, welcome back.
On my monologue yesterday about Catherine McKenna being a co-chair on a Chinese government agency.
Betty writes, funny how there's money to give to the Chinese for McKenna to join their organization, but Canadian veterans are asking for more money than the Liberals have to give.
Yeah, you're so, I mean, listen, you can make the money argument, and money goes to priorities.
You're right.
But frankly, if it was $1 or $1 million or if they were paying us $1 million, I find that a secondary concern to why are we having a cabinet minister who took an oath of loyalty to our queen serving loyalty on a Communist Party government committee?
How can you be loyal to Canada while serving as the vice chair of a government of China committee?
I thought that was a Canada-China Council because she was tweeting China Council, China County.
I assumed that Canada was implied.
That is not a Canada-China Council.
That is just that China Council.
I can't believe no one else has even reported on this.
Or maybe I absolutely can believe it.
Jonathan writes, McKenna has no business sitting on such a committee.
This is divided loyalties, plain and simple.
You're so right.
I remember when Stéphane Dion became leader and Thomas Mulcair as well.
Both of those guys have a foreign passport.
Both have a French passport.
At least I know Dion did.
I think Melcair did also.
And the question is, if Stéphane Dion were to become a prime minister or even leader of the opposition, if you have a foreign passport, at least to me, a passport isn't just a set of rights.
It's a responsibility, duty, patriotism.
I mean, I don't even, I understand if you have two passports for reasons of sentimentality or reasons of business.
There are reasons.
But if you're at the political apex of a country, you can't ride two horses.
I mean, just, again, theoretically, there could be some trade dispute with France.
There could be some dispute at the United Nations.
It could be a border dispute with San Pierre Miquelon over fishing.
How can you be loyal to both sides of that quarrel?
Thank God we would never have a serious mortal quarrel with France, but with China?
How can you work loyally for the success of the Communist Party's five-year plan?
And again, I wouldn't ever say that Stéphane Dion or Thomas Mulcare actively and actually worked for France.
That's the thing I wanted to avoid, the perception of that by their dual citizenship.
Here, I don't think that Catherine McKenna has a Chinese passport.
But she's doing the thing that the passport would worry me about.
She's working loyally for the Chinese government.
It's worse than a passport.
A passport might be, you might have a passport for five different reasons.
It's not the passport itself that's the danger.
It's what the passport implies, that you could be loyal to some other country.
Catherine McKenna, without the Chinese passport, is, by definition, loyal to this committee of the Chinese government.
How, how, how is that okay?
On my interview with Don Laston, Karen writes, what an amazing, amazing interview.
I can't wait to watch the movie.
Very grateful that there is a movie like this out there.
But you have to remember, Donald Trump spoke to the heart of Americans, so he's not a unique unicorn.
He represents the angry voter and normal Americans.
Well, I'm glad you liked that movie.
And I liked watching it.
You know, because it was a good story, well told.
And I won't lie, the whole time I was thinking, this voice, you know, there's something about a narrator.
And I didn't know, I didn't put it together who it was until the very end where I saw his name in the credits, Kelsey Grammar.
Well, that's the show for today.
Do you think I'm too obsessed with this Trudeau China thing?
I actually dug up a video clip I think I'm going to show you tomorrow that's even crazier or just as crazy because nothing can be as crazy as a cabinet minister sitting on a government committee for a foreign government.
Crazy Cabinet Minister Reports00:00:56
How is that even allowed?
You know, I don't know, maybe we should petition the ethics commissioner.
How is that even allowed?
How is that ethical?
And why is not another journalist that I know of saying a peep about this?
If you see it out there, I'll do some research myself.
But if you see any evidence of any other journalist, or where's the Conservative Party opposition, or where's the NDP opposition, talking about it, let me know, because as far as I know, No one has said a word against this.
Don't you find that odd?
I sure do.
I sure do.
All right, folks, that's the show for today.
Hey, by the way, keep going to CaravanReports.com.
David Menzies is safely back in Canada, but his reports, we've got some reports sort of stacked up.
He did about 20 reports when he was down there.
So keep going to CaravanReports.com.
He's got a very interesting interview with a young man from El Salvador who wants to come to Canada.