Commission lawyer disputes Liberal Party director’s previous testimony on MP Han Dong nomination

The Liberal Party’s national director Azam Ishmael faced sharp questioning from Hogue Commission lawyers Friday regarding his previous testimony claiming there were no concerns with the Don Valley North riding during the 2019 nomination, although confirmed intelligence has shown Chinese officials clandestinely coerced Chinese students to vote for a specific candidate.

During earlier testimony, Ishmael had been questioned about the alleged irregularities in the Don Valley North nomination process involving Han Dong. He appeared to downplay concerns about vulnerabilities in the Liberal Party’s procedures, and maintained the Liberals were not subject to Chinese election interference in 2019.

Ishmael was part of a small circle of senior Liberals — with secret intelligence clearances — including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who had been warned about events in Don Valley North before the 2019 election.

Intelligence reports, confirmed by Commissioner Hogue’s interim report and the NSICOP 2024 report, indicated that MP Dong allegedly benefited from a coordinated effort by Chinese consular officials to coerce Chinese international students into voting for him during the nomination process. Dong, while acknowledging that he had encouraged students to volunteer and vote, denies knowing about any Chinese interference.

A lawyer for NDP Jenny Kwan, however, undermined Ishmael’s previous testimony and his claims that the Liberals had not suffered any foreign interference in 2019.

Quoting from the redacted findings of NSICOP 2024, a report tabled for the Hogue Commission’s second phase hearings, Kwan’s lawyer said:

The first paragraph says, "According to CSIS, the PRC had a significant impact in getting Mr. Dong nominated as the Liberal Party of Canada's 2019 federal candidate in Don Valley North." Were you previously aware that this was CSIS' conclusion?

No, Ishmael replied.

So this is the first time you've learned that CSIS concluded this fact?

Correct.

Okay. And would you agree that if this is true, this would count as, to use your words, an "irregularity"?

Yeah, for sure.

Good, thank you. So let's move on to the next paragraph. We'll begin with the second sentence. It says, "Many of Mr. Dong's supporters arrived in buses supported by the PRC. Between 175 and 200 international Chinese students arrived in several buses." Were you aware of this fact?

We knew that buses were used in the nomination, which is not atypical.

And did you know that those buses were supported by the PRC?

No.

So this is the first time you're learning this?

Correct.

And you'd agree that that's an irregularity?

Correct.

Okay. Let's continue with that paragraph. The report states, "The consulate reportedly told the students that they must vote for Mr. Dong if they wanted to maintain their student visas." Were you previously aware of that fact?

No.

And you'd agree that's an irregularity?

Yep.

Okay. So let's move on. The report also says, "The consulate knowingly broke the Liberal Party of Canada's rule that voters in a nomination process must live in the riding." It explains that the students reportedly lived outside the riding. Were you aware of this fact previously?

Nope.

And that would be an irregularity?

Yeah. If they created fake material to vote in the nomination, absolutely.

Right. And you'd agree that it would break the Liberal Party of Canada's rules if those students, who lived outside the riding, nonetheless voted in the nomination?

Absolutely.

Okay. And similarly, you weren't aware that the students had been provided with fraudulent residency paperwork, were you?

Of course not, no.

And that would be an irregularity?

Yes.

That would violate the Liberal Party of Canada's rules?

Absolutely.

And then it says here, "The students sought to physically intimidate voters and distribute pro-Dong materials, contrary to party rules." Were you previously aware of that fact?