John McCallum, Canada’s former ambassador to China (2017–2019), allegedly sold confidential government insights—including 2021 immigration plans—to Chinese entities like Wai Lian Group while accepting $73K in undisclosed CCP gifts. Unregistered as a lobbyist despite legal obligations, he downplayed Canada’s alignment with the U.S., framing economic reliance on Chinese students and investors as critical. Parallels drawn to Portland’s Antifa riots, where Democrats dismiss violence while Republicans expose it, risk fueling Trump’s support. Joel Pollack warns Google’s suppression of conservative sites (e.g., Breitbart) could expand under Democratic rule, deepening free speech concerns. McCallum’s case mirrors broader claims of Liberal Party ties with Beijing, exposing potential institutional corruption. [Automatically generated summary]
Today I tell you about a crazy story and congratulations to the Globe and Mail for breaking it of John McCallum, the former Canadian cabinet minister and diplomat, selling the information he receives in private conversations with Canadian cabinet ministers, selling that information to clients in China.
Crooked, spying, disloyal, you're darn right.
And I'll prove it to you in the moments ahead.
But first, let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
That's what we call the video version of this podcast.
You also get access to Sheila Gunnarid's show, David Menzies' show, and the satisfaction of knowing that your $8 a month goes to support Rebel News.
It's not a lot of dough.
That's less than Netflix.
And we actually fight for freedom.
All right, here's the podcast.
Tonight, Beijing's man in Ottawa brags that Canada is ready to do what it's told.
It's July 30th, and this is the Ezra Levant Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're the biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say is government about why I publish this book is because it's my bloody right to do so.
Who is China's top man in Canada?
If you guessed Kong Pei Wu, you'd be close.
He's the official ambassador from the People's Republic of China to Canada.
But he's not China's top man in Ottawa.
That honor belongs to John McCallum, the disgraced former cabinet minister and diplomat.
It's really quite shocking how transparent he has always been about his total submission to the Communist Party of China.
He literally accepted $73,000 in free gifts from the Communist dictatorship, and those are just the ones that he's disclosed.
As in, he accepted them, he admitted them, he even told authorities about them, and that was just fine, apparently, to Trudeau and our mainstream media.
Imagine if a conservative MP had taken 73 grand worth of payoffs from any country, really, even our allies, like the United States, let alone our enemies.
I document just how deeply McCallum is corrupted by the Chinese dictatorship in my book, China Virus.
He actually said that Communist China has more in common with Canada.
Sorry, that Canada, pardon me, has more in common with Communist China than Canada has with Donald Trump's America.
Just think about what that would mean if it were true.
John McCallum said that culturally, politically, morally, legally, historically, democratically, business-wise, whatever, that Canada has more in common with China than America.
Imagine thinking that was true.
I think he himself summed it up best, McCallum did, when he said what he wanted to do with China.
Within 24 hours of arriving in China, I was invited to present my credentials to President Xi Jinping, and I conveyed to him a message from our prime minister that can be summarized in three words.
More, more, more.
Or in Mandarin, Gengdua, Gengdua, Gengdua.
Yeah, basically whatever China says, his answer is more, more, more.
McCallum was finally sacked, as you know, when he told Chinese language media that he was taking Meng Wenzou's side of the trial.
He was taking Huawei's side in the extradition case.
He said Canada didn't have a strong case.
That's the textbook definition of taking a foreign country's interests ahead of your own country's interests.
The pipe was flowing in the wrong direction, people.
Like I say, he was always Beijing's most important man in Canada, not some generic ambassador no one's ever heard of.
But hey, would you look at this news story in the Global Mail?
And again, credit to the Globe for doing good work.
Canada's troubles with China are only temporary, says former ambassador.
Chinese people and Canadian people are good friends.
Whose side is McCallum on?
Same side as always, China's side.
Let me read a little bit.
Canada's troubles with China are temporary and relations with the rising superpower will return to sunnier times, including borders once again open to immigration and investment.
John McCallum, the former ambassador fired from his position last year, has told clients of a major Chinese immigration company.
Was John McCallum working for that major Chinese company when he was still a cabinet minister or diplomat?
I don't mean that he was necessarily taking cash from them, although we should probably check.
I mean, whoopsies, Bill Mourneau forgot about a $41,000 payment he got.
But was John McCallum preparing to work for Chinese companies after his political career while he was still working for the Canadian government?
Like Jean-Kretchen clearly did.
You'll remember, after Cret Chen resigned as prime minister, it was only a few weeks until he announced his work as a pro-China lobbyist.
It's plainly obvious that he was already preparing for his rich life as a China shill, even when he was still Canada's prime minister in name.
Did McCallum do that too?
Let me read some more.
Mr. McCallum served in the federal cabinet, including as immigration minister, before he was named Canada's ambassador to China in 2017.
He was fired in 2019 after repeatedly speaking in support of the release of Meng Wanzou, the Huawei executive, accused of fraud in the U.S. and arrested in Canada, where she is in the midst of extradition proceedings.
But his experience and connections have made him a coveted speaker for Wai Lian Group, a Shanghai-based company with a 20-year history of smoothing the path for people to immigrate to Canada.
Last fall, Wai Lian paid to have Mr. McCallum speak to clients in five Chinese cities.
According to a person familiar with our arrangement, the Global Mail is not identifying the person because they are not authorized to speak publicly.
Hey, how much do you think John McCallum gets paid for his speeches?
More or less than Justin Trudeau's mother gets paid by We, the crooked Kielberger charity.
I'm guessing McCallum gets paid much, much more.
Now, we is a huge multi-million dollar scam, cult-like, run by secretive and obsessive insiders.
Well, Chinese Communist Party is a huge multi-trillion dollar cult-like scam run by secretive and obsessive insiders.
I'm guessing McCallum got paid more.
Look at this.
On Saturday, Mr. McCallum delivered remarks to another event organized by Wai Lian, this one online, in which he pitched Canada as a worthwhile destination for people from China and cited his friends in the current cabinet to offer reassurances.
Quote, basically, I think China-Canada relations will be good going forward, Mr. McCallum said.
Really?
On what basis would he say that?
I mean, maybe he's just telling them what they want to hear, treating them as suckers just cashing checks and laughing.
If so, I got to sort of respect his scam, telling communist Chinese officials whatever they want to hear for some of that sweet, sweet Beijing money.
I bet he's giving speeches to Huawei too.
I wonder if he ever gives away confidential things that he learned as an ambassador or a cabinet minister.
That would actually be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, maybe millions of dollars, to Chinese entities like Huawei.
I wonder if he just tells them more, more, more, or if he actually gives them, I don't know, cabinet secrets, diplomatic secrets, or maybe he's just giving them BS.
We don't know, do we?
He's so crooked.
Let me read some more.
Canada's economy needs Chinese students, tourists, and investors, he said.
And the Liberal government is eager to reopen Canada's borders to large numbers of new arrivals.
He based his comments in part on a recent conversation with Marco Mendocino, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship, who, quote, plans to admit large numbers of immigrants to Canada in 2021, Mr. McCallum said.
We've got effective unemployment of 20%.
Does Canada's economy really need masses of immigration?
Do we need more Chinese students?
How is that a net plus for us?
Pushing aside Canadian students.
Aren't Canadian schools for Canadian students?
Why should we clear spaces for the privileged sons and daughters of Communist Party bosses?
You don't think it's the ordinary Chinese peasants who are allowed in.
You know it's just the connected sons and daughters of Chinese party officials to get in, right?
How is that in our interest, again?
Is it to spy on our industrial secrets maybe, to corrupt our institutions?
As the University of British Columbia admits, it has been corrupted by an influx of money from Huawei.
But more to the point, why has a current cabinet minister, Mark Mendocino, why was he talking to a communist Chinese lobbyist named John McCallum?
I know that's in McCallum's interest, and I know that's in China's interest, but why was a Canadian sitting cabinet minister talking to a corrupted Chinese lobbyist?
Look at this.
Information about the government's plans, however, is of keen interest to those seeking to immigrate and to companies such as Wileyan, whose business is built around ushering clients through the complexities of the application process.
So what did Mendocino actually tell that Chinese lobbyist that he hasn't told the rest of us?
Why was talking to him personally so valuable?
Mr. McCallum offered reassurances that COVID-19 will create only a temporary pause in Canadian acceptance of new residents.
Quote, the Canadian government remains extremely positive about continuing high levels of immigration, he said, citing his conversation with Mr. Mendocino.
Is that true?
Why is a current cabinet minister leaking confidential plans to a former cabinet minister who's now on the payroll of Beijing?
Is Mark Mendocino on the take also?
Mr. Mendocino spoke with Mr. McCallum in mid-June, Kevin Lemke, the minister's spokesman, said in a statement.
He reached out to Mr. McCallum as a former colleague to discuss immigration and refugee issues, Mr. Lemkesi said, adding, at no time did Mr. McCallum ever mention this company, Wiley Ann, to the minister.
Huh.
So McCallum is sneaky if we're to believe Mendocino.
He's pumped for information that he tells Waileyne and he doesn't disclose it to Mendocino.
It's almost like a spy would be sneaky, right?
Pretending to get the information for himself but actually selling it to China for money.
That's what spies do.
So he didn't tell Mendocino what he was up to.
Well, everyone knows that McCallum works for China now.
I think he always has.
So what exactly, I mean exactly did Mendocino tell him that was so extremely valuable for Wiley Ann to pay for?
I checked and McCallum is not registered as a lobbyist.
He didn't disclose this contact with Mendocino to the lobbyist registry as required by law.
And there's a reason for that.
Here's how the Globe and Mail explains it.
Under Canadian law, Mr. McCallum is barred from lobbying the federal government for five years after leaving office.
He said his conversation with the minister did not constitute lobbying, really, if he does say so himself.
But you know what?
I checked, and Wailey Ann is not registered as a lobbyist either.
Crooked, crooked, crooked.
Are you surprised by the party of Bill Mourneau and Justin Trudeau?
Disconnect In Portland Riots00:11:08
And do you remember what I called my book, China Virus, How Justin Trudeau's Pro-Communist Ideology is Putting Canadians in Danger?
It's Justin Trudeau, but it's the entire Liberal Party.
They're rotten to the core.
They're pro-Chinese Communist Party for profit and for ideology.
They really are taking a foreign country's side against our own side.
They are when they're in power, and they are even more so when they leave power and rent out their connections.
More, more, more.
Yeah, what a bunch of crooks.
Stay with us for more.
There's violence across the whole country.
Do you disavow the violence from Antifa?
That's happening in Portland right now?
That's a myth that's being spread only in Washington, D.C. about the Antifa in Portland?
Yes.
Sir, there's videos everywhere online.
There's fires and riots.
They're throwing fireworks at federal officers.
DHS is there.
Look online.
It gets crazy, Mr. Nadler.
Wow.
So.
He thinks it's fake news.
Antifa's a myth.
Antifa's a myth in Portland.
Meanwhile, the whole city is on fire and they're trying to burn down the courthouse.
That's our friend Austin Fletcher, who goes by the nickname Fleckis, literally bumping into a senior Democratic Party congressman and asking him about the Antifa violence and no, what violence?
It's all a myth.
Don't believe your lying eyes.
Now, is that just a Democratic Party talking point?
Or are the Democrats actually worried that maybe the violence in the streets is starting to hurt them?
Our next guest has a story in Breitbart.com specifically asking that question.
The story is by our friend Joel Pollack.
Democrats start to worry support for Portland riots will help Trump.
And Joel Pollock joins us now via Skype.
Joel, great to see you again.
We've talked about this before.
You've suggested a theory that scared me.
You said that maybe the point of the riots is to show that Trump can't control them and vote for the Democrats because the riots will stop when their friends are there as they give in to the rioters.
So maybe the riots so distress voters that they say, just make it end, just vote for the rioters' allies.
But now you're suggesting that some Democrats think, no, no, no, it's going to have the opposite effect.
They want to strengthen Trump and not reward the rioters.
What's the feeling in the Democratic Party these days?
Well, there's a sense of confusion.
First of all, there's confusion as to whether there is violence at all.
So there's an attempt to deny that there's any violence.
And secondly, there are some who acknowledge that there's violence, but they say it's Trump's fault, that he instigated or exacerbated the violence by sending in federal law enforcement officers to defend the federal courthouse that was targeted by violence in Portland.
Now you have an effort belatedly, and we saw it in the funeral for John Lewis, a belated effort by Democrats to say they're the real champions of nonviolence.
And this has happened because Republicans have been successful at finally exposing Americans to video footage that the mainstream media has avoided of violent protests.
At a testimony hearing this week with Attorney General William Barr, Jim Jordan, a Republican ranking member, showed a video montage of clips of violence from all across the nation.
Many Democrats tuned in to watch that hearing because they thought that the Democrats on the panel were going to skewer William Barr, which they failed to do.
But because so many people were watching, it was the first time most of them had seen the footage.
The White House showed the footage last week, but CNN and MSNBC and even Fox News cut away for various reasons.
Fox said that there was profanity in the film, and that's why they cut away.
But CNN and MSNBC didn't even show the briefing.
So most Americans hadn't seen this violent footage on a nationwide level until James Jordan showed it to them.
I wonder if most Americans actually love seeing some force being deployed.
You mentioned federal police under the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security, I think, looking a little bit like paramilitaries going in to defend the Portland federal courthouse.
I recall when the violence really started a few months ago, there was a morning consult poll that said that every demographic group, including African Americans, wanted violent riots to be stopped.
And actually, a shockingly large number didn't only want police to do it, they wanted the National Guard to do it.
So I think there might be a disconnect between producers of these CNN shows and MSNBC shows and people actually living in the neighborhoods when U.S. blacks are saying, no, stop the violence, even if it's in the name of Black Lives Matter, maybe the Democrats have miscalculated.
I don't know.
I wonder what the ordinary person, not the Twitter ATI or the TV pundits, I wonder what the ordinary person thinks about Trump sending in federal cops to finally snuff out these riots.
Well, he's not sending in federal law enforcement to stop the riots.
And the rioting is still fairly limited to a few cities, but he's really sending them in for the limited purpose of protecting federal property because the Democratic mayors and governors are not doing it.
That's the problem in Portland, that the rioters are attacking a federal courthouse and the mayor and governor refuse to protect it.
Now, what does that mean attacking the federal courthouse?
They're setting it on fire.
They're going inside, setting on fire things like case files and office equipment.
They're trying to destroy the building.
And this is really a symbol of justice in America, a symbol of the rule of law.
And it's being attacked because it's a symbol of the federal government, which is currently headed by Donald J. Trump.
So the federal law enforcement officers are there to protect the courthouse.
There's been some federal law enforcement sent to Chicago and a couple other places to assist local law enforcement with stopping crime.
And the reason there's a lot of crime is because police have been forced to pull back from a lot of dangerous neighborhoods because of the Black Lives Matter movement and restrictions that city officials have put on police.
In Seattle, the city council banned the use of pepper spray, which meant that police now no longer have a non-lethal means for dispersing crowds.
And so the police have told residents, we can't protect you from these crowds anymore.
So there are serious gaps happening right now in law enforcement in the United States, and they're happening because of the conscious decisions of Democratic mayors and Democratic governors.
So the federal government has intervened in a couple of situations.
The president hasn't difficult to do, but that's the situation.
I mean, the most important fact about this is that there's been such intense violence around that Portland courthouse.
And Democrats have persisted in ignoring it, denying it, Jerry Nadler calling it a myth, and it's starting to make the Democrats look very foolish.
I think so.
You think so.
I'm guessing people in peaceful suburban districts that vote Republican think so.
How about in key battlegrounds, places that could tip Republican or Democrat?
Because that's really what we're talking about.
I mean, there's some parts of America that will always vote Republican, and some parts that will always vote Democrat.
How about the Independents?
How about the moderates?
Where do you think they're tipping on this?
I mean, the media is so partisan, it's shocking.
Is Trump breaking through with his message here?
Or is that narrative that no, Trump's causing the violence, is that the dominant message that's breaking through?
We don't really know what's breaking through.
The poll data we have now is not reliable because people who disagree with the left-wing line don't feel comfortable expressing their views.
There's one poll from the Cato Institute, which is a libertarian think tank, that said 77% of Republicans in the United States don't feel comfortable sharing their views, but 58% of staunch liberals in the United States, people on the left, feel very comfortable expressing their views.
You talk to anybody in a large company in the United States who still has a job today, and they'll tell you that they've been subject to a barrage of woke messages, suggested reading lists, advice on how to choose your personal pronoun.
The left have taken over the media.
They've taken over in many large companies that are subject to media scrutiny.
And there's an assault going on right now that's not just physical, but intellectual and social and cultural.
So it's hard to know the exact effect.
We are seeing anecdotal evidence that people don't like what Black Lives Matter is doing.
There's infighting in the Black Lives Matter movement.
You heard James Clyburn earlier this week, who's the most senior African American in Congress, blame white supremacists for infiltrating the Black Lives Matter movement.
He blames white supremacists.
That's tricky.
Very hard to do.
Yeah, he says the white supremacists are causing the violence.
So there's just an air of fear, but I do think that there are a lot of people who are upset with going on and who may see Trump as the only wall, if you can use the term, between them and absolute chaos.
We're talking with Joel Pollock, our friend, one of our favorite guests.
He's also the author of the book Red November.
Will the country vote red for Trump or Red for Socialism?
That word red is on my mind.
You know, Joel, I just went through a book on the red guards in Mao's China.
The insane political brainwashing, the mass struggle sessions, the self-denunciations.
And the more I look at this kind of total political re-education in every sector of society, in sports, in corporations, in advertisements, in schools, the closest thing I can think of is the cultural revolution in China.
And I think as a psychological coping mechanism, a lot of people just succumb.
I mean, when the North Korean dictators die every 30 years, there's mass outpourings of sorrow.
Same was in China.
Same was in Stalin's death.
Those are real.
Those aren't people faking crying.
They have, to psychologically cope, they said, well, I love the tyrants.
And I guess my question for you is maybe a psychological question.
I don't know if you can answer it.
You and I resent and resist being told how to think, but maybe a lot of people say, oh, I'd better go along with it.
Why We Left Google00:06:51
It's easier to live that way.
Maybe it's actually true.
Everyone in authority, everyone important, everyone powerful says that way.
I'm not really a fighter, so let me just go along with it and just get along to go along.
What do you think of that?
That it might actually work, this brainwashing.
Well, I do think it might work.
And again, remember that the purpose of propaganda, as Stalin knew, and this is not an exact quote, but essentially under Stalin, the purpose was not to convince people of its truth, but to make any other thought unthinkable.
And that's what they're doing.
You know, when I went to college, you could get plenty of marks, but you have to look hard to find any sort of Hayek.
And it's become worse since then.
So the point is they want people to immediately stop having access to conservative information, conservative points of view.
We just broke a story this week about how Google had deliberately, apparently, destroyed our search traffic from Google.
We still have very high traffic.
We're one of the busiest websites in the United States.
But Google targeted Breitbart and a few other conservative websites.
And you can see on the graph of searches, basically they killed all search traffic going from Google to Breitbart.
So before this change in early May, if you Googled Joe Biden, on a given day, there would be 30,000 impressions on Breitbart.com coming from Google searches for Joe Biden.
Now it is zero.
If you Google Joe Biden on your computer or your phone, you're not going to get any Breitbart links.
If I Google myself, I don't get any Breitbart links.
Google has disabled, essentially, disabled to bring you links from Breitbart, the Daily Caller, and so forth.
So they've already taken this totalitarian approach in an effort to help Joe Biden win the election and get rid of Donald Trump.
We know this is what they want to do, and they couldn't explain it under oath in front of Congress.
Yesterday, Representative Matt Gates actually got the CEO of Google, Sundar Pichai, to admit that there's a manual process, not some sort of robot, that decides what gets blacklisted and what doesn't.
And he presented that we had at Breitbart of this video that showed Google employees consoling each other after the 2016 election.
And Pichai himself at this meeting where all the executives were there talking about how disruptive this was and how upset they were and how they were going to make sure it never happened again.
So what we're looking at is a broad totalitarian effort to interfere in the American election by denying people information.
And it does have a chance of working.
The only chance it doesn't work is if Trump wins and creates new safeguards after the election.
But we're in for a very ugly time in the next few years in the United States.
Yeah.
Once again, you've depressed me.
We spoke with your colleague Alan Bokhari about his big scoop about Breitbart and other conservative sites being blacklisted.
I've asked Alam to look into whether or not Rebel News has been blacklisted.
I think I know the answer in advance.
Let me ask you one last question because I know you're so busy today.
So much is going on.
I'm grateful that you shoehorn us in your schedule.
You mentioned Matt Gaetz, who's a pretty good congressman on these issues, grilling the head of Google, and that's great.
But all I can think of is pretty much no matter what Sunder Pitchai, the head of Google, said, it didn't matter because nothing's going to change before the election.
You said maybe after the election there'll be changed.
I mean, Senator Pichai could have admitted everything, just been completely brazen, not even tried to defend himself.
And really, Matt Gates, what's he going to do?
Him and what army?
Fine them on what basis?
Launch some last-minute Justice Department investigation.
All right, see you in two years.
I mean, really, the boss of that, it was like a lion playing with a little mouse in its claw.
It was the simulation of accountability, but we know who the boss is, and it ain't the congressman.
Right.
Well, the challenge is that it's very difficult to regulate private companies in this way.
And you're starting to see the beginning of an antitrust investigation.
You are starting to see talk about Federal Trade Commission sanctions Enact or put out these executive orders that strip the tech companies of their protections under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
That's a lot of words, but basically it means the tech companies have had special protection and they've been immune from liability or libel lawsuits based on things that happen on their platforms because they're not publishers, they're just platforms.
They lose that protection once they start expressing viewpoints.
And so Trump issued an executive order this week directing the Federal Communications Commission to work on that.
But all of that is gone if Trump loses.
If Trump loses, basically you're going to get all the Google lobbyists, all the big tech lobbyists back into the White House.
Many of the Obama alumni went to work in Silicon Valley.
They all work for these companies.
And they're going to come in and write the law the way they want to.
So all of the only prospect for reform is for Republicans to win in November, for Trump to win.
If Trump loses, it's over.
There's not going to be any sort of reform ever.
And, you know, they talk about breaking up.
I mean, the left doesn't like these companies at all.
They pretend not to like them.
They talk about breaking up their monopolies and so forth.
But the left will just simply exert more government control than they do surreptitiously.
They'll just do it openly in these companies.
There's no hope for real market-based reform that preserves American freedoms if Trump loses.
And so the battle becomes a very different one.
It's one we'll fight, but it's hopefully not one we'll have to face.
Well, you know what?
I like talking with you, but you leave me depressed every time.
I don't blame you.
You're speaking honestly.
I'm a guy most of the time.
I'd rather have your honesty than some happy talk that we're doing.
We have to be happy, warriors.
I mean, I actually feel better and better about Trump's prospects, but I have to also be honest with you about what it means.
I mean, I write about this in my book, Red November.
We're facing a real choice, and we're on the precipice of a possible socialist revolution in the United States through democratic means, but the outcomes will be far from democratic.
Red November: Honest Talk00:01:11
Well, let's put a link to the Amazon page below this: Amazon, another tech company that engages in censorship.
The link is for the book by our friend Joel.
It's called Red November: Will the Country Vote Red for Trump or Red for Socialism.
Joel, great to see you again.
Good luck out there.
Thank you so much.
All right.
Stay with us more.
Seriously, is there a single liberal cabinet minister, diplomat, insider who's not on the take in some way?
Either on the take for the we charity getting free luxury trips to Kenya, as Bill Mourneau and his whole family, or being on the take getting massive payments for speeches that no one really listens to.
It's clearly just money laundering.
Or John McCallum renting out his phone call access to Mark Mendocino to Chinese entities, promising them things that, I don't know, maybe they're lies, or maybe he really has the inside scoop.