It's a kind of laziness not to look at the methodology and not to look at the party. The point is, as I said in my testimony, that we were not blaming Canadians for not understanding. We were saying that you should be able to look at the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, the Overseas Chinese Affairs Office, the United Front Work Department and its supporting units, like the Chinese Overseas Exchange Association, the China Overseas Friendship Association and all of the associated provincial organizations. These are not friendly organizations. They explicitly exist to do harm.
We should be able to have a conversation about what the appropriate channel is for engagement. What should we think of an organization whose leadership attends multiple world Chinese media forums in the PRC? This is about collaborating with the propaganda system and the United Front system to influence foreign audiences about how to understand China and to tell China's story well.
If people are Canadian citizens, American citizens or anything else and take official advisory or delegate positions with these United Front organizations—again, a set of organizations that seek to do us harm—that seems to me a reasonable question that we could ask of our fellow citizens in a democratic state.
If we want to protect integrity, we have to be able to have a conversation that deals with facts and deals with those sources. Our report left a clear methodology for examining and following up on those questions.