Select LanguageAfrikaansAlbanianArabicArmenianAzerbaijaniBasqueBelarusianBulgarianCatalanChinese (Simplified)Chinese (Traditional)CroatianCzechDanishDutchEnglishEstonianFilipinoFinnishFrenchGalicianGeorgianGermanGreekHaitian CreoleHebrewHindiHungarianIcelandicIndonesianIrishItalianJapaneseKoreanLatvianLithuanianMacedonianMalayMalteseNorwegianPersianPolishPortugueseRomanianRussianSerbianSlovakSlovenianSpanishSwahiliSwedishThaiTurkishUkrainianUrduVietnameseWelshYiddish

---

Editor’s note: The Canada Files is the country’s only news outlet focused on Canadian foreign policy. We’ve provided critical investigations & hard-hitting analysis on Canadian foreign policy since 2019, and need your support.
 
Please consider setting up a monthly or annual donation through Donorbox.

---

Written by: Aidan Jonah & Alex Tyrell

Jonathan Pedneault, the Green Party of Canada’s co-leader, has built his public persona as a journalist and human rights advocate. His career has taken him through some of the world’s most volatile conflict zones—Darfur, Libya, South Sudan, Venezuela, Ukraine, Georgia and more—often in roles that align closely with Western interventionist policies and NATO-backed operations.

Given his past, serious questions must be asked: is Pedneault truly an independent journalist and advocate for human rights? Or has his work served as a tool for advancing U.S. and NATO-aligned foreign policy goals?

 

A Career That Mirrors U.S.-Backed Regime Change Operations

Pedneault’s background suggests a pattern of work that closely follows U.S. and NATO foreign policy objectives. His involvement in conflict zones where the West has sought to destabilize governments, support opposition forces, or justify military interventions cannot be ignored.

 

Darfur: Embedding with Western-Backed Rebels

In 2008, at just 17 years old, Pedneault traveled to Chad and crossed into Sudan’s Darfur region with rebels from the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM). The JEM was a major armed faction fighting against the Sudanese government— JEM having been indirectly enabled by Western governments, because of US sanctions which started in 1997. Pedneault was joined by Alexander Trudeau, former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s brother, on this mission. Together they produced a documentary for CBC. 

His work in Darfur contributed to the broader Western media narrative that framed Sudan’s government as a genocidal regime, a position that helped justify economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation by the U.S. and its allies.

Libya: Reporting from the Front Lines of a NATO Regime Change War

In 2011, Pedneault traveled to Libya to cover the NATO war against Muammar Gaddafi. He embedded with Western-backed rebels and was joined in Tripoli by journalists James Foley and John Lee Anderson shortly after rebel forces seized the capital. The three shared accommodations in Tripoli while reporting from the front lines. VanDyke, an American who fought alongside the Libyan rebels, would later found a paramilitary training group, while Foley had previously worked as an embedded journalist with U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Although neither man was formally affiliated with U.S. intelligence, both operated in close proximity to Western military operations. VanDyke later headed to Ukraine to fight in NATO’s proxy war against Russia. 

The NATO war in Libya was sold to the western public as a “humanitarian intervention,” but it led to the destruction of the country, the rise of ISIS, and a humanitarian crisis. 

In a 2011 photo essay from Libya, Jonathan Pedneault captured a moment of ‘revolutionary optimism’ among anti-Gaddafi rebels. “It will be a democracy where everyone has a place,” one fighter told him, while another declared, “For 42 years we’ve had the same leader. What has he done to develop our country? Nothing! Nothing at all. That will change when we take power.” Presented without critical context, Pedneault’s photo essay reflected the hopeful, yet ultimately naïve, vision of a new ‘democratic’ Libya—a vision that was soon overtaken by civil war, foreign intervention, and national collapse. The quote now reads as a relic of failed promises.

Just last week, Elizabeth May boasted during her local candidates debate that she was the only MP to vote against bombing Libya. Was Pedneault, her co-leader, on the opposite side of this issue, manufacturing consent for that very bombing? 

 

Venezuela: Echoing Washington’s Narrative

Between 2017 and 2022, Jonathan Pedneault served as a researcher with the emergencies team at Human Rights Watch (HRW). During this period, he conducted investigations in Venezuela, focusing on documenting alleged human rights abuses committed by security forces following elections and protests. His work involved operating discreetly within the country to gather evidence of excessive use of force by authorities.   

These investigations were part of a broader effort by HRW to highlight violations of human rights in Venezuela during a time of political unrest. Pedneault’s findings contributed to reports that aimed to hold perpetrators accountable and bring international attention to the situation.

His work in Venezuela was centered on exposing any abuses by the government, and aligned with the interests of Western entities seeking regime change.

By focusing narrowly on the Maduro government’s alleged abuses and omitting the devastating effects of U.S.-imposed restrictions, Pedneault’s work effectively reinforced Washington’s case for intervention — a common critique of HRW as an institution that selectively investigates countries in conflict with U.S. interests.

No similar investigations were undertaken by Pedneault in Colombia, Brazil under Bolsonaro, or Honduras under U.S.-backed regimes — despite well-documented abuses in those countries. Pedneault’s reporting helped legitimize calls for further sanctions and even military threats.

 

South Sudan: Supporting a U.S.-Backed Separatist State

After Libya, Pedneault moved on to South Sudan, a country that had just been created through Western backing following its split from Sudan. He trained journalists in the newly formed state.

Again, his presence in a U.S.-backed state raises concerns: was he helping to support independent journalism, or shaping narratives favorable to Western interests?

 

Syria: A Return to Conflict Zones, but Questions Remain

In early 2025, Jonathan Pedneault stated that he had returned to field work in conflict zones, including Syria. However, no specific reports or documentation have been made public regarding his activities there. His presence raises questions, especially given Syria’s role as a focal point of Western regime change efforts over the past decade.

Western governments, including Canada, supported the opposition to Bashar al-Assad, framing the Western dirty war as a pro-democracy uprising. But over time, many of the opposition-held territories fell under the control of radical Islamist factions, some with ties to al-Qaeda and other extremist groups. In this context, Western-aligned reporting and NGO activity in Syria have drawn criticism for legitimizing foreign intervention and armed militias.

Georgia: Reinforcing Western Strategic Interests on Russia’s Border

In 2024, Pedneault returned to the field after quitting his position with the Green Party in July, choosing Georgia as one of his destinations. The timing and location are telling. Georgia remains a key flashpoint in the geopolitical tug-of-war between NATO and Russia, with the U.S. heavily invested in expanding Western influence in the South Caucasus region.

Pedneault’s activities in Georgia, according to his own statements, were tied to conflict monitoring and human rights reporting. But in a context where virtually all foreign “democracy promotion” efforts are part of larger NATO-aligned statecraft, his work again raises questions: was he operating as an independent actor, or reinforcing the dominant Western narrative of Russian aggression and Georgian victimhood?

Much like his earlier assignments, his presence in a country central to NATO’s eastern expansion strategy fits a consistent pattern — one that suggests he may be part of a broader effort to frame complex geopolitical conflicts through a Western lens, reinforcing the need for militarized deterrence and foreign policy alignment with NATO.

 

Ukraine

In 2022, Pedneault’s last investigative assignment before entering politics was in Ukraine during the first ten days of the war, a critical period when NATO-aligned media sought to solidify support for Western military aid. His presence at that moment suggests he was actively helping to shape the pro-NATO narrative.

Is Pedneault Really an Independent Journalist?

Looking at his career, a clear pattern emerges:

• He has repeatedly embedded with Western-backed rebel groups.

• His access to NATO forces, opposition movements, and military operations suggests coordination with Western interventionist networks.

• His reporting and human rights work have consistently aligned with U.S. and NATO geopolitical objectives.

Independent journalists are often targeted, suppressed, or denied access when their work challenges Western narratives. Pedneault, on the other hand, appears to have enjoyed exceptional access to NATO military operations, Western-backed rebel factions, and opposition forces in countries targeted by U.S. regime change efforts.

 

A Militarized “Green Party” Platform

Since the start of the 2025 election campaign, Jonathan Pedneault has laid out a series of proposals that depart sharply from the Green Party’s traditional anti-war values and align more closely with the priorities of NATO-aligned states:

• Military Spending Increases: He has called for redirecting billions in procurement contracts toward domestic weapons manufacturing, rather than opposing militarization altogether.

• Fighter Jets Flip-Flop: Despite Elizabeth May’s past opposition to the F-35 program — even signing a public letter against it — Pedneault now supports purchasing fighter jets, so long as they are “Made in Canada or Europe.”

• Militarizing the Arctic: He advocates expanding Canadian naval presence and infrastructure across all three coasts, including the Arctic, echoing NATO’s growing strategic focus on the region.

• Troop Increases: Pedneault has called for expanding the reserve forces and launching a national civil defence corps, introducing military-adjacent roles under the guise of disaster preparedness.

• Civilian Training in Firearms and Tactical Skills: His civil defence plan includes training tens of thousands of civilians in basic military and survival tactics — a move that blurs the line between emergency preparedness and soft militarization.

• Support for Censorship in the Name of “Resilience”: Pedneault has repeatedly emphasized the threat of “foreign disinformation” and suggested measures that risk curbing dissent and legitimate political speech under the umbrella of national security.

• Politics of Fear: His rhetoric is dominated by warnings of invasion, economic annexation, and ‘authoritarian’ collapse — invoking a narrative of siege and fear that justifies militarization as a form of “resilience.”

 

A Record of Silence: No Work with Indigenous Nations or Victims of U.S. Empire

Despite his extensive résumé in international human rights reporting, Jonathan Pedneault’s career reveals a striking omission: he has not conducted meaningful work alongside Indigenous Nations in Canada, nor has he documented or engaged with victims of U.S. imperialism. While he has covered abuses in countries often deemed adversaries by the West—Venezuela, Syria, Libya—his record is silent on the long-standing struggles of Indigenous nations across Canada, including land defense, environmental degradation, systemic discrimination, and the impacts of extractive industries. Similarly, Pedneault has not reported on victims of U.S.-backed violence in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, or Honduras, nor has he exposed the toll of American drone warfare, torture programs, or economic sanctions.

This absence raises questions about the selectivity of his human rights advocacy. At a time when movements like Land Back, Idle No More, and the campaign to end U.S. sanctions demand solidarity and visibility, Pedneault’s focus has remained squarely on governments the West seeks to undermine. This lopsided pattern reinforces the critique that his work has served not as a challenge to empire, but as a subtle reinforcement of its narratives. For someone now leading a party with a legacy of standing up for the oppressed and resisting militarism, Pedneault’s lack of connection to struggles within Canada and to those resisting U.S. domination globally is deeply troubling. 

 

Similarities with Annamie Paul 

Pedneault’s arrival as leader of the party comes just three years after his predecessor Annamie Paul attempted to take the party down the path of Zionism; a path that lead to widespread infighting and power struggles within the party. Both Paul and Pedneault were propelled to leadership through both public support and back room manoeuvres that circumvented the democratic selection of the party’s leadership. Both of these leaders came to politics after having lived almost entirely outside of Canada for the last ~15 years. Both claimed to have done human rights work internationally. Neither had a political network in Canada or a history of activism or engagement in public affairs within the country. Both have attempted to lead or force the party into a highly militaristic stance that is very unpopular with grass roots members, candidates and supporters. Neither one of these leaders managed to run a full slate of candidates. 

Green militarism does not sell, does not rally support and erases the voice of what used to be an outspoken anti war party and movement. 

 

Pedneault takes Greens away from peace advocacy

Under Jonathan Pedneault’s leadership, the Green Party has veered away from its long-standing commitment to peace, non-intervention, and grassroots solidarity. Once a voice for diplomacy and demilitarization, the party now echoes NATO talking points—from increased military spending and Arctic militarization to the formation of a new “Global Democratic Alliance” aimed at isolating claimed adversaries like China, Russia, and even the United States.

Pedneault’s professional history reinforces this shift. His body of work follows the trajectory of U.S. and NATO military interests, often aligning with Western-backed opposition movements while omitting the broader geopolitical consequences of foreign intervention. 

Even more troubling is his consistent silence on victims of U.S. imperialism and his lack of engagement with Indigenous Nations here in Canada. In a country still grappling with its colonial foundations, the absence of any meaningful work alongside Indigenous Nations—combined with a selective international record that avoids criticizing Western powers—reveals a narrow and ideologically convenient definition of “human rights.”

While Pedneault’s rhetoric may invoke “resilience” and “human rights,” the substance of his career and platform leans toward militarism, the security state, and foreign policy alignment with U.S. empire.

If the Green Party is to reclaim its founding values, it must reckon with the direction in which its leadership is heading—because for many supporters and observers, it’s genuinely shocking to see the party once known for peace and grassroots democracy now sounding indistinguishable from the very forces it was created to challenge. 

With Jonathan Pedneault at the helm, the Greens have failed to run a full slate of candidates, been excluded from the leaders’ debates, and alienated core activists. With all of these failures and a lack of strong commitment to the party and its founding principles this election will likely be his last at the helm of the Canadian Greens. 

---

Aidan Jonah is the Editor-in-Chief of The Canada Files, an independent news outlet covering Canadian foreign policy with a strong focus on Canada-China relations. Jonah wrote a report for the 48th session of the UN Human Rights Council, held in September 2021.

Alex Tyrrell is leader of the Green Party of Québec. He is an eco-socialist activist and an outspoken voice against Canadian militarism.

---

More Articles

This post was originally published on Articles – The Canada Files.

Select LanguageAfrikaansAlbanianArabicArmenianAzerbaijaniBasqueBelarusianBulgarianCatalanChinese (Simplified)Chinese (Traditional)CroatianCzechDanishDutchEnglishEstonianFilipinoFinnishFrenchGalicianGeorgianGermanGreekHaitian CreoleHebrewHindiHungarianIcelandicIndonesianIrishItalianJapaneseKoreanLatvianLithuanianMacedonianMalayMalteseNorwegianPersianPolishPortugueseRomanianRussianSerbianSlovakSlovenianSpanishSwahiliSwedishThaiTurkishUkrainianUrduVietnameseWelshYiddish

---

Editor’s note: The Canada Files is the country’s only news outlet focused on Canadian foreign policy. We’ve provided critical investigations & hard-hitting analysis on Canadian foreign policy since 2019, and need your support.
 
Please consider setting up a monthly or annual donation through Donorbox.

---

Written by: Aidan Jonah

A Liberal MP candidate in Toronto is coming under extreme scrutiny, because he hasn’t towed Canada’s anti-China party line. Canada’s McCarthyite atmosphere continues to ramp up.

 

Which candidate replaced the MP, how is he being attacked?

A former Liberal MP, Paul Chiang, represented the Markham-Unionville federal riding between 2021 to 2025. Chiang was caught suggesting that people could turn in Joe Tay, now the Conservative candidate for the same riding, and one of the six HKers with the $1 million bounty slapped on their head for actions around the 2019 Western-backed riots in HK. There are some claims that Chiang’s comments were made as a joke, rather than a serious suggestion.

Regardless, this situation led to Chiang’s resignation from the Liberal nomination for Markham-Unionville. This came amidst long-term Conservative party bitterness about Chiang’s victory in 2021, with the Conservatives and their media allies claiming Chinese ‘interference’ drove former MP Bob Saroya’s defeat in the riding, without proper evidence to back the claim up.

Peter Yuen, a former Toronto police deputy chief, was selected to replace Chiang, as Liberal candidate for Markham-Unionville. He’s been targeted by members of the anti-Chinese government faction of Chinese Canadian diaspora, and their supporters (ex. 1, ex. 2, ex. 3), for daring to have sung “My Chinese Heart” at a Chinese Canadian community event in 2017. The anti-communist diaspora faction’s narrative is that this song indicates ‘loyalty’ to the Chinese government because “In 2009, My Chinese Heart was selected as one of the 100 patriotic songs recommended by the Central Propaganda Department.”

Canada’s Globe & Mail, known for having a prominent journalist volunteer to promote a domestic intelligence campaign pushing paranoia about foreign interference in Canadian politics, has gone after Yuen.

Robert Fife and Steven Chase, the same two who were caught doing CSIS’ dirty work, produced an article that claimed (bolding added):

• “Mr. Yuen appears to have a strong relationship with China’s diplomatic mission in Toronto.

• In the context of Yuen being a former honourary director at JCCC: Statements and actions by JCCC echo narratives pushed by Beijing that, according to Human Rights Watch, has deepened repression of its citizens under Mr. Xi’s rule.”

• According to Cheuk Kwan of Toronto Association for Democracy in Canada: “it is well known within the Chinese-Canadian community that the JCCC and Chinese Freemasons are pro-Beijing proxy organizations.”

Yuen was further targeted by association:

“Mr. Yuen has also spoken at and attended events of the Toronto branch of Chinese Freemasons, which has advocated for what it calls the ‘peaceful reunification of China and Taiwan,’ a phrase rejected by the Taiwanese government, which contends that only the self-governing island can decide its own future.”

The Globe & Mail wanted Yuen, as a potential Liberal MP, to do the usual ‘China bad’ declaration, but he didn’t oblige as the article notes:

“[Yuen] declined to answer e-mailed questions from The Globe and Mail on whether he supports Taiwan’s self-determination, condemns China’s crimes against its Uyghur minority or disapproves of UFWD activities.”

A further Fife and Chase article targeted Yuen for accepting an invitation to a Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) celebration in 2015, but his participation was greenlighted by Toronto’s police service.

A Global News article attacked Yuen for his participation in 2014 and 2016 events – one in which he presented a plaque to a former Chinese Consul General in Toronto, and another of the then-Liberal provincial government’s flag raising ceremony for the 67th anniversary of the PRC’s founding in 1949 – and promoted the perspective of the same Kwan whose views were promoted by the Globe & Mail.

Sam Cooper, known for claiming movie footage ‘proved’ an ex-RCMP officer met with the mafia in Macau – then claiming his failure was somehow China’s fault, when caught – also joined in the pressure campaign on Yuen. After Yuen became the replacement Liberal candidate for Markham-Unionville, Cooper used Conservative party sources, to claim without evidence, that China interfered in that riding during the 2021 election race.

Chiang pressured into political retirement

After Chiang’s comments about Tay were unearthed, outrage amongst Canada’s political elite spread rapidly.

Initially, it looked as though Chiang would continue being the Liberal candidate for Markham-Unionville, as Liberal leader Mark Carney came out to call Chiang’s comments “deeply offensive”, but a “teachable moment”, and kept Chiang as a candidate.

However, Canada’s Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) confirmed on March 31, 2025, that they were “reviewing whether a Toronto-area Liberal candidate broke the law” with his comments about Tay. Given how the Canadian political establishment is coddling and supporting the anti-Chinese government faction of the Chinese Canadian diaspora, Hong Kong Watch (HKW)’s comments need to be considered:

“Mr. Chiang’s conduct would appear to fit within the parameters of counselling to commit the indictable offence of kidnapping, per section 464 of the Criminal Code.”

The anti-democratic Bill C-70 (against foreign interference), which The Canada Files warned (ex. 1, ex. 2) about last summer, contains very broad and vague text that punishes supposed interference with life imprisonment. Hong Kong Watch cited it regarding Chiang:

“In addition, Section 20 of the Foreign Interference and Security of Information Act passed by Parliament into law last year, states, ‘Every person commits an offence who, at the direction of, for the benefit of or in association with, a foreign entity or a terrorist group, induces or attempts to induce, by intimidation, threat or violence, any person to do anything or to cause anything to be done.’”

HKW made their comments in a March 31 letter to RCMP Commissioner Michael Duheme, which included this demand:

“As Canadians prepare to vote on April 28, you must provide reassurance that the RCMP is capable of countering foreign interference.”

On the same day, the RCMP confirmed they were investigating Chiang’s comments about Tay. HKW proudly stated that “Late on 31 March, following this letter, Paul Chiang announced he was stepping aside from the federal election.”

Canada’s support for Hong Kong rioters

Why would Canada’s political elite be so protective of the HongKongers in Canada? Because they produced apologetics for the rioters in 2019/2020 – including complaints about the 2020 National Security Law that clamped down on foreign funding – and the cancellation of the extradition treaty between Canada and China’s HKSAR that same year. Anti-China rioter Agnes Chow also took the opportunity to be an international student in Canada, despite being under investigation for additional charges – other than incitement and unlawful assembly charges which she pled guilty to – and used the chance to flee China.

Canada has been facilitating the HongKongers’ cooperation with the other elements of the anti-Chinese government faction of the Chinese Canadian diaspora.

Last year, Canadian parliamentarians began working to boost the profile of HongKongers and damage Canada’s relationship with China’s Hong Kong SAR through a parliament subcommittee, but their efforts were defeated temporarily when Canada’s parliament was prorogued and then an election was called.

With Conservative candidate Joe Tay having a shot of becoming a Canadian MP, HongKongers will be far more relevant in Canada than in China’s HKSAR, in the coming years.

Tay has utilizied Canada’s McCarthyite atmosphere to keep attention on his candidacy. Western Standard News reported – on April 23, 2025, that:

“Conservative candidate Joe Tay has suspended public campaigning in Don Valley North after Canadian security officials warned of threats tied to a Chinese government repression campaign targeting him.”

Canada’s establishment – the Security and Intelligence Threats to Elections (SITE) task force, Canadian security officials and others – is doing their best to make sure Tay can get into parliament, by fuelling evidence-free claims of China interfering to damage Tay’s candidacy.

Chiang of the past, Yuen of the future?

Chiang’s potential overreach in his comments obscure the deeper ramification of the reactions towards Chiang (that dissent towards China policy will be punished more and more firmly in the future), which produced the ‘voluntary’ end to his political career as an MP.

If Yuen can’t hold his nerve, he’ll either be forced into the ritual ‘China bad’ statements the McCarthyite political elites in Canada want to hear, or resign the Liberal nomination as well.

If Yuen can hold his nerve, it will be fascinating to see how Canada’s political elites will attempt to persecute him – likely through the intelligence services and the mainstream media – if he wins his riding and becomes a sitting MP, and how he and the Chinese Canadian community may fight back against this.

---

Aidan Jonah is the Editor-in-Chief of The Canada Files, an independent news outlet covering Canadian foreign policy with a strong focus on Canada-China relations. Jonah wrote a report for the 48th session of the UN Human Rights Council, held in September 2021.

---

More Articles

This post was originally published on Articles – The Canada Files.

“A ‘kill chain’ is a systematic process that outlines the steps required to identify, target, disrupt and neutralize an adversary.” – Digital Public Square

Select LanguageAfrikaansAlbanianArabicArmenianAzerbaijaniBasqueBelarusianBulgarianCatalanChinese (Simplified)Chinese (Traditional)CroatianCzechDanishDutchEnglishEstonianFilipinoFinnishFrenchGalicianGeorgianGermanGreekHaitian CreoleHebrewHindiHungarianIcelandicIndonesianIrishItalianJapaneseKoreanLatvianLithuanianMacedonianMalayMalteseNorwegianPersianPolishPortugueseRomanianRussianSerbianSlovakSlovenianSpanishSwahiliSwedishThaiTurkishUkrainianUrduVietnameseWelshYiddish

Written by: Aidan Jonah

An ATIP document obtained by The Canada Files reveals that the Canadian government funded a think tank report proposing a ‘kill chain’ framework that would subordinate Canada’s ‘legal framework’ to McCarthyism. At least one element of the ‘kill chain’ has already been implemented.

So much for ‘Canada’s leading independent researchers’, working with Digital Public Square, coming to save Canadians from Chinese ‘transnational repression’. That story, from Sam Cooper, now serves as another dud on his ignominious journalistic record.

 

What is the kill chain framework and its ramifications?

The ‘kill chain’ framework is explained in Cooper’s 2024 article for The Bureau:

“A comprehensive kill chain framework is proposed to systematically counter PRC operations, enabling government, law enforcement, civil society, and Canada’s democratic allies to both individually and collaboratively address threats at every stage of their development and execution.”

The proposed countermeasures in the ‘kill chain’ are wildly anti-democratic. The mentality of lead researcher’s Sze Fung-Lee makes this obvious; “It is difficult for the community leaders in Canada to protect themselves against China’s hybrid warfare with just the legal framework,” “until Canada prosecutes Beijing proxies”.

Digital Public Square, the Toronto-based think tank which received funding from Canadian Heritage, described a ‘kill chain’ as a “systematic process that outlines the steps required to identify, target, disrupt and neutralize an adversary.”

A Digital Public Square post (WebArchived) on December 11, 2024, confirmed the report proposing a “kill chain” was “Funded by the Government of Canada”.

Desired ‘kill chain’ countermeasures include, to:

• “Develop tools for communities to report suspicious activities and potential targeting”

• “Identify groups and individuals known to collaborate with the regime, and conduct regular monitoring and analysis”

• “Strengthen cooperation and communications between vulnerable communities and law enforcement”

• “Community-based interventions”

• “Coordinated law enforcement action”

• “Public accountability, attribution, and exposure”

• “Develop support networks [for the diaspora activists liked by the Canadian government]”

Digital Public Square described a ‘kill chain’ as a “systematic process that outlines the steps required to identify, target, disrupt and neutralize an adversary.”

What does this ‘kill chain’ indicate in layman’s terms? That a Canadian government funded report is recommending – since Canada’s legal system is failing to prosecute the evil ‘Beijing proxies’ that they can’t find any actual evidence to convict, who are instead targeted with intelligence agency smears that wouldn’t hold up in court – that Chinese Canadians who dissent to Canadian foreign policy be targeted by “government, law enforcement, civil society, and Canada’s democratic allies” without the need for any pesky ‘evidence’, ‘convictions’ or ‘appeals process’.

William Dere, a decades-long Chinese Canadian activist opposed to McCarthyism, said “The ‘kill chain’ is an elaborate plan for infiltration and disruption of the Chinese Canadian community all in the name of fighting foreign interference. Their plan also includes national repression on the part of Canadian authorities on those in the CC community who may be sympathetic to the PRC.”

The contribution agreement stated that DPS’ research findings will be applied to “to inform the development of two digital inoculation tools.”

The tools, according to Canadian Heritage, “will be designed to raise awareness about foreign interference campaigns and increase resilience to their impacts.’ One tool will target the general public and another will specifically target the Chinese Canadian community (Pg. 3, A-2024-00391).

This means that at least one element of the ‘kill chain’ has already been implemented by the Canadian government, before it was even released to the general public.

According to Dere, “This shows the complicity of government surveillance and its collaborators, and the explicit attack on the democratic rights and freedoms of Chinese Canadians to fully participate in Canada’s political process.” He criticized Canadian Heritage, stating that “In essence it is a source of division to promote the anti-China agenda and labelling others as ‘proxies’ of China.”

Senator Yuen Pau Woo told The Canada Files:

“I support efforts to counter foreign interference but not at the cost of infringing Canadians’ rights to freedom of expression and freedom of association. This includes the right of Canadians to hold views that align with foreign countries and to have relationships with foreign entities that do not break the law in Canada or abroad. Anything less would amount to McCarthyism.  I also believe in the principle of consistency, materiality, and proportionality in dealing with foreign interference and am puzzled that Heritage Canada is not supporting projects that focus on interference and disinformation from the United States, which is by far and away the most significant threat to Canadian democracy and sovereignty today. That too is a marker of McCarthyism.”

Cooper’s beloved report: just one part of a bigger project

Cooper’s article on the Digital Public Square (DPS) report lines up perfectly with the requirements laid out in the contribution agreement document – between Canadian Heritage and Digital Public Square – obtained by this author.

Comparison will suffice here:

• Contribution Agreement: “Recognizing the complexity and sensitivity of this project context, DPS will partner with subject matter experts to research PRC foreign influence, disinformation, and transnational repression campaigns in Canada.”

  • Cooper article: “Lee and disinformation researcher Marcus Kolga worked with Digital Public Square, a Toronto-based non-profit, on a new project revealing the growing reach of Beijing’s agents in diaspora communities.”

• Contribution Agreement: “Research activities will have three main inputs: research and analysis into Canadian information environments to improve our understanding of foreign interference campaigns in Canada;”

  • Cooper article: “Beyond its survey of diaspora leaders, what distinguishes Lee’s collaboration with Kolga, she noted, is its focus on identifying Chinese proxy networks and predicting tactics used in Canada to surveil Beijing’s targets. These tactics include identification and prioritization of targets, media disinformation attacks, so-called “lawfare” (lawsuits apparently backed by Beijing), and even physical actions to silence critics, Fung said.”

• Contribution Agreement: “Research activities will have three main inputs:… consultation sessions with representatives from diaspora communities and other groups that have experienced the impacts of such campaigns;

  • Cooper article (bolding added): “Their research sums up the chilling experiences of 25 Canadian community leaders from Chinese, Hong Kong, Taiwanese, Tibetan, Uyghur, and Falun Gong backgrounds.”

But remarkably, the contribution agreement confirms that Cooper’s heralded report is just one of two report DPS was required to produce for Canadian Heritage (Pg. 3, A-2024-00391).

The contribution agreement ties in even tighter to the overall work produced by Digital Public Square, Lee and Kolga for Canadian Heritage.

Contribution Agreement: “Research activities will have three main inputs:… and a national survey to measure Canadians’ awareness of and vulnerability to such campaigns” (Pg. 3, A-2024-00391).

The survey is here. And what did Digital Public Square choose to do? (bolding added)

“Beyond a survey of the general population, we oversampled the Chinese diasporas – the self-identified ethnic Chinese (including those born in Canada, other than those from Hong Kong or Taiwan categorized separately), Hong Kongers, Taiwanese, Tibetans, and Uyghurs, to further examine their attitudes towards and the impact of these issues on them. In particular, we sought to investigate the extent to which they have been subject to harassment and political intimidation from the PRC government.”

While Cooper’s article framed the so-called ‘independent researchers’ as having “the goal of ultimately liaising with Ottawa’s underperforming enforcement and intelligence agencies to offer their expertise”, this was already something guaranteed to occur.

That’s because the contribution agreement confirms that:

“At the conclusion of the project, DPS and partners will hold a roundtable event to share and discuss project findings with Canadian policymakers, civil society, Chinese diaspora communities, and other stakeholders, with a view towards strengthening Canada’s resilience to foreign interference” (Pg. 3, A-2024-00391).

Yet somehow, Canadian Heritage, in responding to two ATIP requests from this author, claimed they had no records of internal email conversations and email conversations with DPS about the progression of their project (between January 1, 2024 to end of January 2025). This author has filed an appeal against this claim to Canada’s Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC).

Another report, produced by Kolga’s DisinfoWatch in cooperation with Digital Public Square, funded “in part by the Government of Canada”, called “Democracy and You:  A Handbook for Detecting and Preventing Foreign Interference in Canadian Elections”, was released on April 7, 2025.

Digital Public Square and Canadian Heritage did not respond to The Canada Files’ request for comment.

 

Obey, Chinese Canadian, says Canada’s government

Canadian Heritage has continued the Canadian government’s pattern of using the anti-government faction of the Chinese Canadian diaspora as a weapon against the Chinese Canadian community, in service of demonizing China. They kept going by allowing DPS to “engage community groups to promote distribution of the Community Tool to Chinese-speaking communities” (Pg. 3, A-2024-00391).

When the researchers prioritized anti-Chinese government groupings of the diaspora in Canada, it becomes obvious which kinds of community groups will be promoting distribution: those who push the ‘Chinese foreign interference’ panic so pervasive in modern Canadian politics.

The majority of the Chinese Canadian community, abandoned and then targeted by the Canadian government, has a chance to push back in an organized fashion. That chance is the planned national Chinese Canadian organization against McCarthyism, to be spearheaded by Senator Yuen Pau Woo.

With a government-funded report calling for a creation of a ‘kill chain’ that targets Chinese Canadian dissent (‘PRC operations’) the legal system has refused to prosecute because of a lack of evidence – by subordinating the legal system to intelligence agency narratives and anti-China political machinations – such a national organization continues to be proven incredibly timely, and much needed.

Document

• A-2024-00391

---

Aidan Jonah is the Editor-in-Chief of The Canada Files, an independent news outlet covering Canadian foreign policy with a strong focus on Canada-China relations. Jonah wrote a report for the 48th session of the UN Human Rights Council, held in September 2021.

---

Editor’s note: The Canada Files is the country’s only news outlet focused on Canadian foreign policy. We’ve provided critical investigations & hard-hitting analysis on Canadian foreign policy since 2019, and need your support.
 
Please consider setting up a monthly or annual donation through Donorbox.

---

More Articles

This post was originally published on Articles – The Canada Files.

Select LanguageAfrikaansAlbanianArabicArmenianAzerbaijaniBasqueBelarusianBulgarianCatalanChinese (Simplified)Chinese (Traditional)CroatianCzechDanishDutchEnglishEstonianFilipinoFinnishFrenchGalicianGeorgianGermanGreekHaitian CreoleHebrewHindiHungarianIcelandicIndonesianIrishItalianJapaneseKoreanLatvianLithuanianMacedonianMalayMalteseNorwegianPersianPolishPortugueseRomanianRussianSerbianSlovakSlovenianSpanishSwahiliSwedishThaiTurkishUkrainianUrduVietnameseWelshYiddish

Editor’s note: This article was originally published in CovertAction Magazine.

Written by: Aidan Jonah

Why was Canada trying to take Uygurs who were deported from Thailand to China? A failed anti-Chinese government policy, triggering a later cost of nearly $1 million CAD, is the elephant in the room.

British newspaper The Guardian reported that Canada and the US had offered to take in all 48 Uygurs held in Thailand, before 40 were deported back to China at the beginning of March.

While readers would often associate the United States with shenanigans around China and its Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region (XUAR), Canada has made its own noise on this front.

Canada itself was the first country whose parliament declared that China’s treatment of Uygurs in the XUAR was a “genocide”, back in 2021. Allowed to drive the lead-up to this vote, was a CIA-funded Uygur separatist organization, Uyghur Rights Advocacy Project (URAP). URAP went on to accuse a Canadian Senator who opposed a follow-up ‘genocide’ motion in Canada’s Senate of “acting as a spokesperson for China rather than for Canada”.

Rather than face any criticism for such comments towards a Canadian Senator, URAP was given attention by the Canadian government, as a 2023 memorandum stated that for URAP:

“Successes include: the building of a Uyghur parliamentary friendship group; Canada’s recent commitment to welcome 10,000 Uyghur refugees; and the hearing conducted by the Subcommittee on International Human Rights in 2020 and the subsequent parliamentary motion recognizing the Uyghur genocide.”

This section of the memorandum was referring to a non-binding motion in Canada’s parliament, passed unanimously in February 2023, which demanded that Canada should:

“urgently leverage Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada’s Refugee and Humanitarian Program to expedite the entry of 10,000 Uyghurs … over two years starting in 2024 into Canada.”

And with much bravado, with the support of then-Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the efforts to bring in 10k Uygur ‘refugees’ began in 2024.

But there’s one big problem, the original 2022 motion (passed in 2023) was premised on the idea that:

“a genocide is currently being carried out by the People’s Republic of China against Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims”

That’s a problem, because if you want to find a large of refugees, it usually follows unpopular crackdown or a ‘genocide’. As this author has detailed for this outlet, there has not been such a situation in China’s XUAR.

And without an actual genocide, or even just a cultural genocide, should it be any surprise that Canada has struggled mightily to match its Uygur “refugee” goal?

 

Nearly $1 million CAD, to help only a few Uygur “refugees”

Canada only bringing in its first Uygur “refugee” in December 2024, when the stated aim was 10,000, would be a major embarrassment on its own.

But the embarrassment was higher than most would realize, because before the first “refugee” entered Canada, The Canada Files discovered a contribution indicating that the CIA-funded URAP had received nearly $1 million CAD to assist Uygur ‘refugees’ who’d come to Canada. After this story broke, Canada’s immigration department tried to hide the contribution from the public and URAP has never answered questions around it.

By this point – November 2024 – zero Uygur “refugees” had been brought to Canada.

Canada’s immigration department further escalated in January 2025, by refusing to provide the final copy of the contribution agreement signed between them and URAP, for the near $1 million CAD contribution.

URAP’s Executive Director, Mehmet Tohti, has a questionable past around Uygur refugees. This author earlier explained that:

“URAP’s Executive Director, Mehmet Tohti, has previously demanded that Canada allow in Guantanamo prisoner Anvar (Ali) Hassan, a then 34-year-old who “fled China to live and train in a camp in Afghanistan in 2001” and was ‘later caught in the hills of Pakistan’, who ‘admitted to military training in Afghanistan’ with the motivation of fighting the ‘oppressive Chinese government’”.

Tohti was also a co-founder of the World Uyghur Congress (WUC), another CIA-funded organization, serving as Vice-President twice, and currently is an elected Director of the Legal Committee for WUC.

To this day, what URAP has done with the nearly $1 million CAD, given only a few “refugees” have come to Canada, is still an open question.

And as such, it is no wonder that Canada would be so interested in getting some of the 48 Uygurs in detention in Thailand, almost all now deported back to China.

Given how determined Canada is to boost URAP and other anti-China separatists – by funding them, showing them off at a conference and helping them network with each other, and defending them when sanctioned by China – Canada would want to get more Uygur “refugees” into the country to show “progress” in their ‘refugee saving’ program, while also easing the pressure on URAP to answer questions on what the money they’ve been given is being spent on.

Are these Canadian shenanigans against China in the ordinary citizen’s interest? Of course not, but the imperial machine has its mind made up to go after China, and the citizen’s interest is of little concern to Canada’s government.

---

Aidan Jonah is the Editor-in-Chief of The Canada Files, a socialist, anti-imperialist news outlet founded in 2019. Jonah wrote a report for the 48th session of the UN Human Rights Council, held in September 2021.

---

Editor’s note: The Canada Files is the country’s only news outlet focused on Canadian foreign policy. We’ve provided critical investigations & hard-hitting analysis on Canadian foreign policy since 2019, and need your support.
 
Please consider setting up a monthly or annual donation through Donorbox.

---

More Articles

This post was originally published on Articles – The Canada Files.

Select LanguageAfrikaansAlbanianArabicArmenianAzerbaijaniBasqueBelarusianBulgarianCatalanChinese (Simplified)Chinese (Traditional)CroatianCzechDanishDutchEnglishEstonianFilipinoFinnishFrenchGalicianGeorgianGermanGreekHaitian CreoleHebrewHindiHungarianIcelandicIndonesianIrishItalianJapaneseKoreanLatvianLithuanianMacedonianMalayMalteseNorwegianPersianPolishPortugueseRomanianRussianSerbianSlovakSlovenianSpanishSwahiliSwedishThaiTurkishUkrainianUrduVietnameseWelshYiddish

Written by: Aidan Jonah

The government of former Liberal Prime Minister, Jean Chrétien, triggered more than two decades of strong Canada-China trade relations after an election victory in 1993. But after Canada kidnapped Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou on behalf of the United States of America (USA), Canada-China relations have deteriorated.

It would take a true shock to the system for Canada’s politicians and mainstream media to consider growing trade ties with China, given the pervasive China bashing they and the intelligence agencies have fomented. Last summer, Canada showed its servility by following the USA in implementing a 100 per cent tariff on Chinese electric vehicles (EVs).

Enter Donald Trump, President of the USA.

After being elected as the USA’s President, Trump threatened tariffs on both Canada and Mexico under the guise of supposed unfairness of the Canada-US trade balance and claims of fentanyl from the two countries flooding into the USA. Trump implemented a 25 per cent tariff on imports from Canada and Mexico on February 1 and implemented a 30-day pause of these tariffs two days later. But, seven days later, Trump implemented “a 25 percent tariff on all foreign steel and aluminum”.

By mid-February, the Toronto Star reported that British Columbia’s Premier, David Eby, was calling for Canada to “revisit its tariff policy with all countries” and give “a concession in the trade dispute it has with China.” The current trade dispute is centered on Canada’s 100 per cent tariff on Chinese EVs and a 25 per cent tariff on Chinese steel and aluminum.

Grain Growers of Canada head Kyle Larkin, which “represents about 70,000 grain farmers”, strongly urged Canada to work with China to resolve the tariffs dispute, which saw China “levy a 100 per cent tariff on more than $1 billion worth of Canadian canola oil, meal and pea imports, and a 25 per cent duty on $1.6 billion worth of Canadian aquatic products and pork” on February 15.

Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance executive director Michael Harvey said the alliance wants Canada to engage with China in a bid to have it drop the aforementioned tariffs.

Both Eby and Larkin were clear that Canada couldn’t handle a trade war on two fronts.

Despite these calls, on March 13, Canada’s then-innovation, science and industry minister Francois-Philippe Champagne said Canada wouldn’t drop its Chinese EVs, steel and aluminum tariffs.

Last month, in the Globe and Mail, Jeff Mahon, former Deputy Director of the Canadian foreign ministry’s China Division, urged Canada to engage with negotiations with China to “negotiate a new consensus” around trade. Such a new consensus would see China’s recent tariffs removed. Mahon wants to see Canada “seek new mechanisms to move zero-sum trade conflicts to positive-sum arrangements.”

This month, InsideHalton.com quoted Julian Karaguesian, an economist and lecturer at McGill University, as saying that Canada had followed “Washington’s playbook” with its Chinese EV tariff and “said Canada should sit down and talk with China.”

In a case of grand irony, Trump recently hit Canadian aluminum and steel with 25 per cent tariffs. This comes along with a 25 per cent tariff on vehicles made outside of the USA, along with some vehicle parts. However, Canada-US-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) compliant goods will be exempt from Trump’s wave of tariffs on the supposed ‘Liberation Day’ of April 2, 2025.

And so, despite foreign interference paranoia driven by Canada’s main intelligence agency, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), against Chinese Canadians and the Chinese government, the vision of a trade reset with China is back on the table on the minds of Canadian politicians and the mainstream media, if only of out sheer necessity.

When it is established, the planned national Chinese Canadian organization against McCarthyism – to be spearheaded by Senator Yuen Pau Woo – would be well advised to initiate a push for a trade reset with China.

Trump’s tariffs on Canada could be a turning point for those who fight against Canadian McCarthyism and the push for Canada to decouple from China, if the moment is used intelligently.

---

Aidan Jonah is the Editor-in-Chief of The Canada Files, a socialist, anti-imperialist news outlet founded in 2019. Jonah wrote a report for the 48th session of the UN Human Rights Council, held in September 2021.

---

Editor’s note: The Canada Files is the country’s only news outlet focused on Canadian foreign policy. We’ve provided critical investigations & hard-hitting analysis on Canadian foreign policy since 2019, and need your support.
 
Please consider setting up a monthly or annual donation through Donorbox.

---

More Articles

This post was originally published on Articles – The Canada Files.