I can find no reference to his age, or to the year in which he immigrated to Canada. Hong Kong was transferred to China on July 1, 1997, 29 years ago, so I could not determine if he immigrated to Canada when Hong Kong was British, or part of China. But unless he is younger than 41, it was before Hong Kong was transferred back to China, and he would probably have been, rough;y interpreted, a British Subject in Limbo, (A British passport to the rest of the world but not really a British passport in Britain). This certainly goes towards addressing any issue of bias, and if he could hold a Chinese passport by birth.

https://passportia.org/en/uk-citizenship-hong-kong.php

This certainly does put an interesting twist on the Canada-China dialogue. It is really difficult to sort through fact-from-fiction, depending on where you were indoctrinated with your Chinese history knowledge.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] we_all_live_in_a_capital_i@lemmy.ca 3 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (4 children)

I watched the CBC clip. That style of "questioning" is antithetical to understanding and opposite to information-gathering. It is used by politicians (and others) who have no interest in making evidence-based decisions. He didn't want information, didn't want to understand, and will only make governing decisions based on his existing ideology. There should be no place in government for MPs who wilfully ignore opportunities to better understand the issues they are dealing with. I feel bad for the witness. She came to provide information and was attacked by an idiot.

[–] ProudCanadianCitizen@lemmy.ca 1 points 13 hours ago (3 children)

His office freely admitted that he was using a tactic he learned while he was a member of the PC party. So was the 'idiocy' from the PC or the Liberal Party?

[–] we_all_live_in_a_capital_i@lemmy.ca 2 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

I posted my comment before his non-apology and his office's weak response. But to answer your question, neither. No one makes an MP behave that way. No party makes an MP behave that way. He chose to attack a witness instead of seeking to understand her information and perspective. He made no apology to the witness. He chose to use a stupid "tactic". That makes him an idiot, in my view. I suspect the Liberals made him apologize, but who knows. He obviously doesn't think anything was wrong with it. I don't know why he crossed the floor.

[–] ProudCanadianCitizen@lemmy.ca 1 points 12 hours ago

Politics is politics. To understand the questioning, it must be understood that this witness was NOT selected as an unbiased witness, but was selected specifically BECAUSE of her bias towards the issue, and towards China. She was an assistant deputy minister, which basically means an unelected politician specifically indoctrinated in the policies of the political party in power at the time. Her position was well understood long before she took the stand. There was no hope of getting any unbiased neutral 'facts' from her from the get-go.

load more comments (1 replies)