Article contentThat distinction is essential and as our record demonstrates our concern has never been Buddhism, ethnicity or immigration. Nor should this debate stigmatize monks, nuns, Taiwanese Canadians, Chinese Canadians or any other community.Article contentDuring the research for Canada Under Siege, we consulted representatives of the Central Tibetan Administration. At a subsequent book launch in Washington, D.C., senior Tibetan representatives thanked us for investigation alleged United Front activity and its implications for Tibetan Buddhism on P.E.I. Investigative reporting by CBC/Radio-Canada and The Globe and Mail has also raised serious questions concerning relationships involving Buddhist organizations, China and Prince Edward Island.Article contentTaiwanese origins do not, by themselves, resolve the question. Taiwan has spent decades confronting Beijing’s United Front activities precisely because individuals and organizations outside mainland China can become targets for cultivation and influence.Article contentArticle contentOur research also examined reports that former premier Wade MacLauchlan received warnings from Taiwan’s representative in Canada concerning the complicated relationships under examination. If such warnings were given, government records should establish what was communicated, who received it and what action followed.Article contentArticle contentAcademic relationshipsArticle contentThe same principle applies to P.E.I.’s educational institutions.Article contentOver approximately 25 years, Holland College and UPEI developed extensive relationships with universities and technical institutions in the People’s Republic of China. Our separate research has identified Chinese counterpart institutions whose defence-related or military-civil-fusion connections subsequently attracted Canadian or allied national-security scrutiny.Article contentThat does not mean Holland College, UPEI or their personnel knowingly participated in foreign collusion, interference or benefitted personally from the association.Article contentArticle contentIt does raise a legitimate question: as Canada’s understanding of PRC foreign interference and military-civil-fusion risks changed, were these longstanding institutional relationships ever comprehensively reassessed or was it ever vetted through a national security lens?Article contentMacDonald, as a former president of Holland College, is particularly well positioned to appreciate why that question deserves an evidence-based answer. Today, some institutions they signed MOU’s with are on various entities lists prepared by each of the 5 Eyes alliance. UPEI’s relationships should also be reviewed based on the world as it is.Article contentArticle contentAssumptions cut both waysArticle contentThen there is IRAC.Article contentDemanding regulatory transparency does not mean demanding that the RCMP disclose confidential investigative files. Islanders are entitled to know whether landholding limits were properly enforced, whether beneficial ownership and related parties were adequately examined, what became of earlier promised reviews, and whether regulatory decisions can withstand independent scrutiny. IRAC commissioners and politicians let the public believe in the existence of a report that everyone thought exonerated GEBIS and GWBI, which I am sure they too were just as surprised by the revelations.
COMMENTARY: Absence of criminal charges does not prove innocence
