Connect with us

espionage

The Winnipeg Lab Leak: A Tale of Naivety and National Security Neglect

Published

6 minute read

From The Opposition News Network

How Ideological Blindness and Bureaucratic Red Tape Endangered Global Health

Let’s cut to the chase. Watching Meeting No. 36 of the Special Committee on the Canada–People’s Republic of China Relationship was like stepping into a world where common sense has left the building. We’ve got a lab in Winnipeg, Canada’s only high-security virology institute, embroiled in what’s essentially a spy movie plot, except it’s real life. Two scientists, Xiangguo Qiu and her husband Keding Cheng, get shown the door over what? Allegedly sending deadly viruses to China. The stuff of nightmares, right?

But here’s where it gets rich. Enter the Honourable Mark Holland, grilled in committee about why, after being flagged by CSIS, these scientists were still allowed to send those pathogens to China. His answer? A masterpiece in missing the point, extolling the virtues of due process and the reputation of scientists as if those are our only concerns when dealing with potential global security threats.

Then there’s his spiel on China. According to Holland, collaborating with China is this grand opportunity for humanity. Really? When it comes to shipping deadly viruses, I’d say the only opportunity is for a disaster. Holland’s defense of the indefensible, prioritizing process over precaution, is a stark reminder of how out of touch he is.

And then, as if to show us what backbone looks like, Dr. Stephen Ellis steps up. This guy gets it. He cuts through the nonsense, asking the hard questions, like whether Wuhan had the Ebola virus before this espionage act. Holland, true to form, dances around the answer. That silence? It’s deafening. It’s as if our government handed over a biological ticking time bomb to China on a silver platter, wrapped in the guise of saving humanity.

So, what are we left with? A government so embroiled in bureaucratic red tape and political correctness that it can’t see the forest for the trees. The more they talk, the more you realize they’re not just missing the point; they’re not even in the same library.

Final thoughts

I’ll leave you with this, my dear reader: as we peel back the layers of governance in our nation, the urgency for change becomes not just apparent but critical. The more I witness the complacency and the ideological rigidity of those at the helm, the more I’m convinced of the need for a seismic shift in our political landscape. It’s not just about choosing between left and right anymore; it’s about choosing between sense and sensibility versus reckless disregard for the principles that have kept our nation strong.

Is handing the reins over to the conservatives with a supermajority the solution? It’s a question that weighs heavily on many minds, mine included. However, the status quo is untenable. The upcoming election isn’t just another cycle; it’s a crossroads for Canada. A time for us, the electorate, to stand up and remind those in power that they serve at our pleasure, not the other way around. We are at a moment of reckoning. A moment where every vote is a statement, every voice a clarion call for leaders who place the well-being of Canada and its people above partisan politics and personal gain. The parties currently in power would do well to remember their duty to the electorate, lest they find themselves relics of a bygone era, swept away by a public that demands and deserves better.

So, as we look forward to casting our votes, let’s remember the power that resides in our hands. The power to shape our nation’s future, to uphold the values of freedom, integrity, and resilience that define us. Let’s rally behind the call for a government that truly represents the best of Canada, a government that not only listens but acts with the courage and conviction worthy of this great country. The time for change is now. The time for action is upon us. And to those in power: Take heed. The Canadian people are watching, they are informed, and they are ready to reclaim the promise of a nation built on the principles of truth, justice, and unwavering determination. Together, let’s make the next chapter in our history one of revival and renewed strength.

For the full experience,  subscribe

Dan Knight

Writer for the Opposition Network/ Former amateur MMA champion / Independent journalist / Political commentator / Podcaster / Unbiased reporting 

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

espionage

“Suitcase of Cash” and Secret Meeting Deepen Britain’s Beijing Espionage Crisis

Published on

Sam Cooper's avatar Sam Cooper

Britain’s most consequential espionage scandal in a generation has narrowed on Keir Starmer’s inner cabinet after The Sunday Times revealed that alleged Chinese agent Christopher Berry was intercepted at Heathrow Airport with a “suitcase full of cash” — and that senior officials, including National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell and Cabinet Secretary Christopher Wormald, held a closed-door meeting, allegedly discussing that advancing the case would harm relations with Beijing, weeks before prosecutors abandoned the insider-threat file.

The revelations, combined with an explosive Opposition letter from Kemi Badenoch and a rare diplomatic intervention from Washington, have plunged Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government into the most serious national-security controversy of its tenure — one now shaking both Westminster and the Five Eyes intelligence alliance. Not since the Kim Philby affair and the exposure of the Cambridge Spy Ring has a British government been so roiled by allegations of insider compromise and appeasement toward a hostile foreign state.

As The Sunday Times reported, Christopher Berry — a 33-year-old academic from Oxfordshire — was stopped under the Terrorism and Border Security Act after a February 2023 flight from China. Police seized £4,000 in cash, believed to have been supplied by his Chinese handler, codenamed “Alex,” linked to the Ministry of State Security.

A witness statement tabled in Parliament last week indicated that Berry funnelled real-time political intelligence through his MSS handler to one of Beijing’s senior leaders, all collected from a former Chinese teaching colleague — a Parliamentary researcher with deep access to senior Conservative MPs. Beijing reportedly viewed those MPs as a strategic threat, fearing that if they rose to higher office they would adopt a far stricter stance toward China’s geopolitical ambitions.

Though Berry was not detained at the time, the incident became central to the espionage case later dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service when the Starmer government declined to certify that China posed an “ongoing threat to national security” — a legal requirement under the Official Secrets Act.

The Sunday Times also revealed that Deputy National Security Adviser Matthew Collins, the government’s sole witness, privately acknowledged that the decision not to describe China as an “ongoing threat” was “political.” The paper further disclosed that Jonathan Powell — a former banking executive who rose to become Starmer’s National Security Adviser — chaired a meeting on September 1 attended by Cabinet Secretary Christopher Wormald and MI5 Director-General Sir Ken McCallum, in which “the general theme of discussion was how the UK’s relationship with China was going to be damaged by this case.”

If accurate, that account directly contradicts Starmer’s assurance to Parliament that “no minister or special adviser was involved.” The implication — that Britain’s most senior national-security officials were weighing diplomatic consequences while an active espionage prosecution was still underway — has intensified accusations that the case was derailed by political interference rather than evidentiary weakness.

Within hours of the Sunday Times story, Opposition Leader Kemi Badenoch posted a letter to X accusing Keir Starmer of misleading Parliament and concealing ministerial involvement in the case’s collapse.

Framing the letter, Badenoch sought to explain the rapidly evolving affair to a wider audience. “I don’t blame you if you’ve struggled to follow the China spying case engulfing Parliament. Even MPs are finding it hard to keep up with a story that seems to change by the hour,” she wrote. “I suspect many fair-minded people have assumed this story can’t contain much. It seems too implausible for the government to have deliberately let off people who were accused of spying on MPs. But the story is truly astonishing. The layers of it have unravelled over the past few weeks like something from a spy novel.”

In the letter itself, Badenoch demands full disclosure of all correspondence, meetings, and witness-statement revisions involving Jonathan Powell, the Attorney General, or the Cabinet Office. She references the Sunday Times account directly, noting that “Powell left attendees with the understanding that Deputy National Security Adviser Collins’s witness statement would operate within the language of the report,” implying foreknowledge and coordination between Downing Street and prosecutors. She further alleges that Starmer’s ministers “softened” later witness statements to downplay Chinese espionage, replacing hard intelligence assessments with diplomatic phrasing designed to reassure Beijing. Her conclusion is cutting: “You have shown Britain is weak in the face of espionage, and have emboldened our enemies to believe they can spy on us with impunity.”

As reported previously by The Bureau, the controversy has now drawn international concern. The Chair of the U.S. House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, John Moolenaar, has issued an extraordinary public rebuke on the court matter — a move almost without precedent between close allies. In a two-page letter dated October 16, 2025, addressed to James Roscoe, chargé d’affaires at the British Embassy in Washington, Moolenaar warned that Britain’s decision to abandon the prosecution risked setting “a dangerous precedent that foreign adversaries can target democratically elected legislators with impunity.” He wrote that the decision “deeply troubles” U.S. lawmakers and “undermines Five Eyes security coordination,” given the substantial amount of evidence against Berry and Christopher Cash, who were accused of funnelling parliamentary intelligence to the Chinese Communist Party.

“I hope the UK government will not allow this case to falter,” Moolenaar said, “and will instead take the steps necessary to ensure that both justice and due process are served.”

The letter, co-signed by senior members of the Committee and publicly released by Congress, marks an exceptional public intervention in a live national-security case involving a Five Eyes partner. Moolenaar added that the decision to drop the prosecution — despite evidence confirming a direct intelligence channel from Westminster to Beijing — “paints a concerning picture,” noting the resumption of high-level UK–China trade talks, negotiations over China’s proposed “super embassy” in London, and London’s ongoing review of its diplomatic posture toward Beijing. “Allowing this PRC aggression to go unchecked,” he warned, “would only incentivize the CCP to further interfere in Western democracies.”

As The Bureau previously detailed, Matthew Collins’s witness statement traced an intelligence pipeline connecting Westminster directly to Beijing’s leadership. Berry, via his handler “Alex,” transmitted reports obtained from Christopher Cash, a parliamentary aide with access to Conservative MPs critical of Beijing. Collins confirmed that some of the same intelligence later appeared in the possession of a senior CCP Politburo Standing Committee member — reportedly Cai Qi, one of Xi Jinping’s closest allies. Collins also documented Beijing’s targeted inquiries into the 2022 Conservative leadership race, focusing on Tom Tugendhat and Neil O’Brien, both members of the China Research Group (CRG) and long-standing critics of the CCP.

Taken together, the Heathrow cash seizure, the Powell-chaired meeting, the Badenoch letter, and the U.S. congressional intervention point to a modern Cold War crisis — a confrontation that has now moved beyond Westminster to test the cohesion of the Western alliance itself.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Continue Reading

espionage

PEI to Ottawa: Investigate CCP Footprints—Now

Published on

The Opposition with Dan Knight

Dan Knight's avatar Dan Knight

A tiny province just did what the federal government refuses to: demand answers about foreign interference and Chinese money.

Prince Edward Island’s new government just lit a signal fire Ottawa can’t ignore—two formal letters demanding immediate, transparent federal investigations into alleged foreign interference and money laundering on the Island. One to RCMP Commissioner Michael Duheme, the other to FINTRAC CEO Sarah Paquet. Clear, direct, no hedging: talk to the whistleblowers, follow the money, and determine whether criminal or regulatory action is warranted.

And here’s the part that should make every sane person furious: why did it take a new government to do the obvious? Where was this urgency from the last crew running Charlottetown? For years, Islanders were told to calm down, look away, don’t ask questions—and now, in week one of grown-up supervision, we suddenly discover the tools were always there. Why didn’t the previous government pull them?

Even worse, why hasn’t the Liberal establishment in Ottawa barley lifted a finger in regards to foreign interference in this country? This is the same crowd that held a public inquiry into foreign interference, took victory laps, and then… parked the file. The commission issued volumes of findings and 50-plus recommendations, but action? Mostly press releases. Meanwhile, the much-hyped foreign influence registry —passed on paper in 2024— still isn’t fully in force, with cabinet dithering while everyone pretends it’s complicated. If the smallest province can move in days, what’s Ottawa’s excuse after years of warnings and a law they already passed?

Premier Rob Lantz framed it plainly: Islanders deserve clarity and competent, depoliticized scrutiny. The province says the move follows years of speculation and a Parliament Hill press conference on Oct. 8 where a former RCMP superintendent suggested evidence could justify a criminal probe centered on PEI. Translation: this is no longer a fringe concern—it’s now an official paper trail with the RCMP and FINTRAC on the hook.

PEI also reminded Ottawa that in February 2025 it ordered the Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission (IRAC) to run an independent land-ownership investigation—with new powers added to the Lands Protection Act in 2022—amid public questions about complex land purchases and potential indirect control. That review is ongoing and now sits alongside the requested federal probes.

Context matters: investigative reporting in recent weeks connected these concerns to Buddhist-affiliated networks and called for a wider federal inquiry. Whether every allegation holds or not, PEI’s letters escalate the file from media claims to formal federal scrutiny—exactly where it belongs if Canada is serious about foreign interference.

Bottom line: a tiny province—Prince Edward Island of all places—just forced a national reckoning. Not Toronto, not Ottawa, not some vaunted federal intelligence agency. No, it took 160,000 salt-of-the-earth Islanders to do what the entire Liberal Party has refused to do for years: demand an investigation into what looks suspiciously like CCP-linked land grabs, money laundering, and political influence operations happening right under our noses.

And yet—silence from Ottawa. Why? Because could it be that the same people now running the show in this country are the ones who spent the last decade cheerleading for the Chinese Communist Party? Mark Carney, has a track record with China that reads like a LinkedIn endorsement from the People’s Liberation Army. Brookfield, where Carney was Vice Chair, took $250 million from the Bank of China to fund its real estate empire. You think that doesn’t come with strings? Please.

And Trudeau? Let’s not forget, this is the man who once said he admired China’s “basic dictatorship”—because, of course he did. That kind of centralized control makes things so efficient when you’re trying to crush dissent and funnel wealth into the hands of a compliant elite.

The ball is in the RCMP and FINTRAC’s court. But if you’re expecting urgency from institutions shackled to the same political class that let this rot take hold, don’t hold your breath. PEI just did the hard part. Now we get to find out if Canada has any real institutions left.

Dan Knight · Hundreds of paid subscribers
I’m an independent Canadian journalist exposing corruption, delivering unfiltered truths and untold stories.
Join me on Substack for fearless reporting that goes beyond headlines

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight

Continue Reading

Trending

X