The National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICP) report, which stated that some (unnamed) MPs and Senators are collaborating with foreign countries, was quickly dismissed by Green Party leader Elizabeth May as of little significance. NDP leader Jagmeet Singh also read the report and reached a remarkably different conclusion.

Elizabeth May’s Assessment

Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands), leader of the federal Green Party, took just three hours to read the unredacted version of the National Security Report. Despite her top-security clearance, she was eager to share her conclusions with the public, not at one, but at two press conferences: Tuesday, June 11, 2024 and Monday, June 17, 2024.

On June 11th, May wanted the public to rest easy, stating, “Having read the full unredacted National Security Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians report for myself, I can say I have no worries about anyone in the House of Commons. There is no list of MPs who have shown disloyalty to Canada,”

On June 17th, May doubled down on her message of “nothing to see here, move along” repeating her earlier assertion that she did not believe that any of her current Parliamentary colleagues had betrayed Canada, although perhaps a few had shown poor judgment.

NDP Leader Mr. Singh’s Assessment

After reading the same Security Report, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh came to the opposite conclusion from that of Ms. May. Singh stated at his own press conference, held on Thursday, 13 June 2024, that he was “not relieved after reading this report. I am more concerned today than I was yesterday”. Singh went further, stating, “there are a number of MPs who have knowingly provided help to foreign governments, some to the detriment of Canada and Canadians. There are also politicians at all levels of government who have benefited from foreign interference.   Some of this behaviour absolutely appears to be criminal and should be prosecuted.”  The NDP leader even went so far as to say that those MPs were “indeed traitors to the country”.

How Does One Explain the Difference Between May and Singh?

Reports, based on intelligence sources which can include information that is ambiguous and susceptible to a number of interpretations, are not always easy to assess. At the very least, however, the Security Report raises security questions of which Ms. May seems oblivious.

Why is May Unconcerned about the Implications of the Report?

We must look at Ms. May’s outward actions and associations to answer this question. The following particulars are not from a secret, redacted report, but are taken from open sources. Simply put, the following information about Ms. May is easily available for all to see if they take the time to look for it.

For a number of years, Elizabeth May was a Director of the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD).   In 2012, the IISD became an international partner of the China Council for International Cooperation on Environment and Development (CCICED).  The CCICED was established in 1992 with the “approval” of the Government of China, which makes CCICED a state agency of the Chinese Government.  CCICED’s Chairman is a top-ranking communist official, Ding Xuexiang, who is also first Vice Premier of the People’s Republic of China and the sixth-ranked member of the Politburo Standing Committee of the Chinese Communist Party.  IISD is also part of the “International Secretariat” of CCICED, which is the way by which CCICED spreads its money and influence around the world in furtherance of Chinese foreign policy objectives.  The former President and CEO of IISD is Scott Vaughan, who is now the CCICED’s International Chief Advisor.

While May is no longer on the Board of IISD, she does appear to stay in contact with IISD and CCICED.  Posts on IISD’s social media, X, show May visiting IISD’s Ottawa offices where she met with CCICED Chief International Advisor Scott Vaughan—IISD comments, “It’s always a pleasure to welcome @ElizabethMay to our #Ottawa office”—and attended events in Winnipeg last year.

Given May’s involvement with the environmental movement, and especially with IISD and CCICED, she must be aware of where the money is coming from to fund the movement.  Is it fair to ask that in downplaying the Security Report with its repeated references to Chinese interference, May is simply attempting to protect the source of that funding?

Tip of the Iceberg

A closer look at CCICED reveals that the federal Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Canada is one of CCICED’s international partners and has been for a long time.  Also, the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), which was formerly part of the federal Department of Foreign Affairs (now called Global Affairs), has also been involved in funding CCICED.  Between 1992 and 1996, Canada, i.e., the Canadian taxpayer funded CCICED to the tune of US$3.4 million; while in the same period, the Chinese Government contributed only US$915,000!   In addition, Canada also offered funding for additional CCICED projects for research: CDN $6.9 million for phase I, CDN$6.9 million for Phase II; CDN$8 million for Phase III, and CDN$6.95 million for Phase IV. These figures are from the CCICED’s documents, Background Paper on Phase I: 1992-1996 and the Report on Collaboration with Canada (2016).

IISD has offices in Ottawa, and coincidently, in Winnipeg—the home of the National Microbiology Laboratory, which has been the centre of Chinese spying activity and another Trudeau/Liberal alleged intelligence scandal.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of CCICED is the fact that Steven Guilbeault, Trudeau’s present Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, is the current Executive Vice Chairperson of the CCICED!  Moreover, former Environment Liberal Ministers, Catherine McKenna and Jonathan Wilkinson, were also Vice-Chairs before Guilbeault.

Who’s Influencing Policy?

Had Elizabeth May kept quiet about the intelligence report, little interest would have been shown in her or her ties to the IISD and CCICED and their direct ties to the Chinese Government, a.k.a., the Communist Party of China. In China, the Party is the Government, and the Government is the Party.

REAL Women, however, was puzzled by Ms. May’s quick response to, and dismissal of the Security Report. We were curious as to what was behind her surprising reaction to it. It did not take us long to find out as the information was easily available.

To summarize, CCICED is a Chinese State body, chaired by the first Vice Premier of the People’s Republic of China and the sixth-ranked member of the Politburo Standing Committee of the Chinese Communist Party.  Steven Guilbeault, the Environment Minister, is the Vice-Chair, and Liberal Cabinet Ministers Catherine McKenna and Jonathan Wilkinson were also Vice-Chairs before Guilbeault.  Since the CCICED’s inception, the Canadian taxpayer has funded the CCICED with some $25.25 million, plus the costs associated with officials traveling to China for CCICED meetings.

The apparent embeddedness of Canadian politicians in a Chinese government agency raises legitimate questions about the formation of Canadian energy and environmental policies.  A look at the state of those policies tells us that the only one benefiting from those policies is Communist China, certainly not Albertans or fellow Canadians.  A country is only as secure and prosperous as its energy supplies and other natural resources.  By not developing those resources, Canada’s economy is weak and getting weaker.  A recent report by Deloitte Canada estimated that, under current emission cap rules, it is not economical to produce more oil, which means a GDP loss of $282 billion over ten years.  While Alberta has the greatest loss at $191 billion, other provinces will also suffer losses.  Alberta energy is good for all Canadians, but Trudeau and the Liberals purposefully pursue policies that cripple or otherwise destroy what should be one of the healthiest sectors of Canada’s economy.

Canada’s Traitorous Elites

At the level of geopolitics, who benefits from a weak and energy-starved Canada?  It doesn’t take much to understand that the main beneficiary is Communist China.

Communist China is not an ally of Canada; at best it is a competitor, at worst an adversary.  Quite apart from ideological differences, the national interests of Canada and China are different, although there may be areas of mutual interest where co-operation is justified.

People like May, Trudeau, Guilbeault, McKenna, Wilkinson et al. don’t have to be card-carrying members of the Chinese Communist Party to be of use to the Chinese Government.  The environmental movement, which, of course, covers a lot of territory exhibits a significant, militant, Marxist fanaticism which seeks to shutter energy and natural resource development, especially in the West. This “no growth” agenda fits in nicely with Chinese foreign policy goals.

One doesn’t need a secret, heavily redacted, Security Report to understand that, in the words of Jagmeet Singh, “There are a number of MPs who have knowingly provided help to foreign governments, some to the detriment of Canada and Canadians.”  Singh went so far as to call these politicians “traitors”—certainly, at best, they are “useful idiots”.   Liberal policies, and particularly energy policies, are clearly a detriment to Canada and Canadians.   The list of useful idiots who have foisted these policies on Canadians is already well-known—at the top of the list is Justin Trudeau.

The real lesson of the Security Report and reaction to it suggests that we don’t need to look for traitors in the shadows, when they are there to be seen in broad daylight.  Elizabeth May has unwittingly provided us with a timely reminder of this.