Senator Yuen Pau Woo

Chinese Translation

Keynote Speech to the Chinese Cultural Centre of Greater Vancouver

Let me start by wishing everyone a very Happy Lunar New Year.  祝大家新年快乐，身体健康，蛇年大吉，恭喜发财！On this fourth day of the New Year, tradition has it that families welcome the Kitchen God (接灶神, Zao Shen) back to their homes and make offerings of food and sweets to ensure Zao Shen’s favour for the rest of the year.   

Well, we have been offering gifts and sweets to the Kitchen God in the South since he threatened tariffs on Canadian products, but it hasn’t done us much good. This morning, the United States confirmed that it is imposing a 25% tariff on almost all imports from Canada, with the possibility of an increase in the months ahead. I don’t think offering more sweets to the Kitchen God today is going to make a difference.

Another New Year Day Four tradition is to not argue or speak negatively on this day, as it may set a bad tone for the rest of the year. Well, President Trump is setting a very bad tone for the year ahead. His threats and insults are hostile acts against Canada. He is blunt in calling for “economic force” against Canada to achieve his objectives. This is tantamount to what is also called “economic coercion,” which is the general term for sanctions that are imposed on foreign states that behave badly – think North Korea, Iran, or Russia. We are now, in effect, on the receiving end of American economic sanctions. Let’s be clear: He can impose these tariffs despite CUSMA, but only on the grounds that we are a “national security threat” to the United States. That is the basis on which he levied tariffs on Canadian aluminum and steel during his previous administration, so we are, in his eyes, a “repeat” offender in terms of national security threats to the United States. But the point is not about how he justifies the use of tariffs against us or any other country. Whatever the rationale, he is using tariffs in effect to bully a trading partner into submission on trade and non-trade matters.

His threats have been repeated and amplified by numerous individuals and organizations in the United States and in Canada seeking to influence Canadian opinion and policy. For example, Jordan Peterson was on the front page of the National Post on 29 January making outrageous claims against Canada that are aligned with Trump’s views.

His views sound suspiciously like foreign interference (FI), as defined by a Bill that was recently passed by the Parliament of Canada. Under that Bill (C-70), a Canadian who is in association with a foreign entity and is involved in a political process surreptitiously or deceptively, can be prosecuted under the Foreign Interference and Security of Information Act, and sentenced to a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

Mr Peterson does not have to fear prosecution, however, since there is no appetite among lawmakers and law enforcement to label US threats and influence operations in Canada as foreign interference. The Public Inquiry on Foreign Interference, which just released its final report, essentially ignores FI from the United States. Commissioner Hogue says the greatest threat to Canada is disinformation but fails to mention the most important and most consequential source of disinformation, which is the United States. The Foreign Interference report gives the impression that if we stop disinformation from China, Russia, India, and Iran, Canada will be safe. In this respect, the report is not only wrong; it is misleading and dangerous. 

Canadians have for too long assumed that FI from the United States is idiosyncratic and transitory, and hence can be tolerated. Another common view is that FI from the US is merely a difference of opinion within a family and therefore not really a form of foreign interference. The language of “shared values and common interests” continues to dominate Canadian responses to the Trump threat. There is a tendency to explain away the bad behavior of the United States, or to turn a blind eye to it. A National Post op-ed from the Macdonald-Laurier Institution from last week had this to say:

“Navigating the fallout of Trump’s off-putting, if unserious, rhetoric will require Canada to not lose perspective. The United States is larger than any single four-year presidency, and its relationships with allies like Canada are founded on shared values and interests that transcend current political tensions. . . .  As the West navigates this period of uncertainty, all parties must work to maintain focus on actual threats rather than provocative rhetoric.” 

In other words, today’s 25% tariff on Canada should be considered “unserious” and “provocative” but not a real threat. The real threat to Canada, according to the authors, is an offer from the Chinese Embassy in Ottawa to increase trade between the two countries. 

Unfortunately, many Canadian opinion leaders share this kind of collective delusion. It is based on ideological blinkers and old-fashioned prejudice. For all the mythology about Canada being a special friend to China since the 1970s, the instinct to demonize China runs deep in Canada. After eight years as a senator in Ottawa, I see it very clearly – in Parliament, among political staffers, in government departments, in the government relations and lobbyist community, and of course the media. We are led to believe that the most important foreign policy challenge for Canada is to counter China. We’ve heard it time and time again, from both government and opposition leaders, and across mainstream English and French media. It is a mantra, and those who utter it do so as if in a trance. 

There are of course many reasons to be wary about China, which is facing severe economic and social challenges, including some that are self-inflicted. Canadians are understandably uncomfortable with many of the actions and policies of the Chinese government and have every right to express their opposition to Beijing, whether it is on the treatment of Uyghurs, cross-straits relations, or Hong Kong. But to suggest that China is an “existential threat” to Canada, as some politicians and media have suggested, is insanity. Perhaps some of our leaders are only saying that for US consumption, but even so, it is dangerous talk. It feeds the anti-China sentiment that has resulted in growing Anti-Asian hate, and which has led to discrimination against and stigmatization of Canadians with ties to China, especially Chinese Canadians. 

Canada is now responding to Trump’s hostile acts, and there will be more to come. Whatever package of responses we end up with will be a mixture of retaliation and accommodation. As the weaker partner in the US-Canada relationship, the pressure to accommodate increases with the magnitude and duration of the threat. While accommodation may not be in Canada’s long-term interest, it will inevitably form part of a realist strategy to minimize the harm from a capricious and bullying neighbour.

Most of the accommodation will be on economic policy, for example on energy exports, supply of critical minerals, taxation of US companies, intellectual property rights, rules of origin, common external tariffs, etc.

But there will also be pressure to align more tightly with US foreign policy with respect to its geostrategic competition with China, for example in export controls and restrictions on Chinese companies operating in Canada. This is already happening, and in some cases, Canada is running ahead of the US in its efforts to decouple from China.

In the face of the Trump threat, the path of least resistance is to not just align with the US on its geopolitical competition with China, but to double down on it. Hence, we have comments from various ministers and premiers about creating a fortress North America, especially in the supply of critical minerals and in curbing technology exports, for the express purpose of slowing down China’s rise. There may be a logic to closer economic integration with the United States that is beneficial for Canada (as NAFTA proved to be), but to pursue this strategy to advance US foreign policy objectives vis-à-vis China is a fool’s errand.  Even under the Biden administration, the idea of friendshoring was more about protecting American jobs than it was about mutually beneficial trade and investment with friendly countries (ask Korea or Japan about how they were treated under the Inflation Reduction Act. Or Nippon Steel in its attempt to buy an American company). Events of recent weeks should have disabused Canadians of the idea that we are America’s closest and most trusted friend, but much of the thinking around how to respond to Donald Trump continues to be based on such a premise.

The pressure to align with the US will extend to National Security, including on issues such as foreign influence and foreign interference, espionage, cybercrime, intellectual property theft, and research collaboration in sensitive areas. All of these are important issues for Canada to be vigilant about.

But these are the very issues where the danger is greatest for Canadians to be caught up by an overzealous approach to national security that deems anyone with ties to China or who expresses views that appear to be favourable to China as a potential foreign interference or espionage risk to Canada. The Kenny Chiu and Erin O’Toole examples of FI in the PIFI report are chilling. Both cases amount to a suppression of Canadians’ right to disagree with the positions taken by politicians. In the case of Mr Chiu, it was about the overreach of his private members’ bill on a foreign agent registry; in Mr O’Toole’s case, it was on his hawkish stance on China. The question is not whether Mr Chiu and Mr O’Toole’s positions are correct; it is about the right of Canadians to challenge those positions.

The Foreign Interference Inquiry is itself a product of sensationalist media reporting based on illegally leaked intelligence documents, egged on by craven politicians who are trying to out-hawk each other in their positions on China (with an eye to Washington DC). As an intervenor in the Inquiry, I was struck by how shallow the intelligence reports were and by the baseless and irresponsible claims of some witnesses. 

For example, when MP Michael Chong was asked to provide an example of foreign interference during the 2021 general election, he cited a Zoom campaign event at which a person speaking in “Mandarin-accented English” asked questions about Anti-Asian racism and the lack of an independent Canadian foreign policy. Chong may not enjoy being asked such questions, but to suggest that they are markers of PRC interference is both a stretch and a suppression of legitimate democratic debate, during an election no less.

NDP MP Jenny Kwan offered her own formula for identifying foreign agents in Vancouver. She claimed Chinese organizations that once welcomed her to events, but that no longer do, were likely proxies for the PRC. The Chinese Canadian Museum faced special opprobrium for not inviting her to the podium for a photo-op at its official opening in July 2023. For what it is worth, I was also at that event, sitting not far from Kwan, and I similarly did not receive the call to be immortalized in a snapshot. I do not, however, believe in an inalienable right for politicians to be invited to community events, nor am I inclined to cast the organizers of such events as foreign agents because of pique.

These examples would be funny if the consequences were not so grave, especially now that we have a law that could land you in jail for life if you are tagged as a foreign agent involved in a “political activity”.  What does it mean to be “in association with” a foreign entity? Attending an event hosted by a foreign government, meeting periodically with officials from a foreign country? Holding views that align with another government? Maintaining ties with government or government-linked organizations in the country you emigrated from?  Witnesses at the Foreign Interference Inquiry, including prominent human rights activists in Vancouver, shamelessly accused Chinese community leaders of being foreign agents without any meaningful evidence.  What is their goal? To get community leaders they don’t like prosecuted under C-70?  This is McCarthyism.

We are in the grip of foreign interference hysteria fed by self-interested media, spineless politicians, and opportunistic activist groups.  To be clear, I am against foreign interference, especially what is called “transnational repression” (TR), but the victims of TR do a disservice to their cause by recklessly accusing other Canadians of being foreign agents simply because they hold different views. 

The foreign interference inquiry has revealed a profound paranoia about a “China threat,” with numerous examples of witness testimony based on unsubstantiated and spurious claims about Chinese FI. While there are some worrying examples of transnational repression of Chinese dissidents, the threat of Chinese foreign interference in Canada has been grossly exaggerated and certainly pales in significance to the threat to Canadian democracy from US and domestic sources.

The frenzy is driven in part by Canada’s enthusiasm to follow the US lead in its geopolitical conflict with China and to take at face value claims about Chinese foreign interference in Canada, often based on foreign sources.

Take the case of Service à la famille chinoise du Grand Montréal and its sister organization, Centre Sino-Québec. In March 2023, based on information from a Spanish (i.e. foreign) NGO, the RCMP publicly announced that they were investigating clandestine “police stations” operating out of these two organizations. To this day, no charges have been filed and the RCMP has not disclosed any details of what they are investigating or what even constitutes a clandestine police station.

The impact on the two organizations has been devastating. Community services such as French-language instruction for new immigrants, legal advice, and counselling for those who do not speak an official language, as well as recreation for seniors and internships for young people, have been sharply reduced due to cutbacks in government funding. Last Spring, the loss of tenants due to the stigmatization of the Chinese Family Services resulted in the bank’s refusal to renew the mortgage on the building belonging to the community center. The building was saved by directors of the board who used their own assets as collateral to extend the bank loan. The organizations filed a lawsuit against the RCMP in March 2024, to which the police still have not responded.

Hysteria around foreign interference has led to the passing of draconian laws such as C-70, which can be used to silence, stigmatize, intimidate, and incarcerate Canadians for holding views that may align with a foreign state. Even though the law is country agnostic, it will almost certainly be used in a discriminatory fashion. Will Canadians who are “in association with” American interests with respect to conflicts with Canada be charged under the provisions of the C-70? I doubt it. On the other hand, Canadians with ties to China run the risk of being charged with serious criminal offences if they are found to be taking part in a political process and doing so “in association with a foreign entity” covertly or deceptively.  With an election around the corner, the risks for politically active Chinese Canadians are serious. The great irony of this law is that it will serve to discourage certain immigrants with ties to their home countries from participating in Canadian democracy. Perhaps that was the point of C-70.

100 years after the infamous “Chinese Exclusion Act”, there is a new Chinese exclusion emerging.  It does not target all Chinese people in Canada but rather seeks to divide Chinese Canadians into “Good Chinese” and “Bad Chinese”. The latter are those who hold views that may align with the PRC and who associate with groups in the PRC that are seen to be enemies of the West. “Good Chinese” who buy into this narrative are in some cases aiding and abetting the new exclusion by accusing others of being “Bad Chinese” because they don’t share the same views. These “Good Chinese” will also deny that there is any racism at play since they are not affected by the stigmatization.  The path to being a “Good Chinese” in Canada is very clear – demonstrate your hostility to Beijing and accuse as foreign agents those who don’t agree with you. 

Traditional anti-racism and human rights groups do not seem to understand this new threat and have been unwilling to address it. They are blinded by their own ideological blinkers and have decided that the suppression of the rights and freedoms of “Bad Chinese” is justified by their dislike of the Chinese government.  This is where the campaigns against Anti-Asian hate, from governments to universities to corporations and NGOs, have failed.  While everyone seems to agree that there has been a spike in hate against Asians since 2019, very few people are willing to recognize that the main driver for this resurgence of racism is anti-China sentiment. If anything, anti-China sentiment is used as a cover for stigmatization, suspicions, whispers, and outright discrimination against Canadians who have ties to the PRC. And so-called human rights groups are complicit in these shameful acts.

We must stand up to new Chinese exclusion. I have in mind the creation of an organization, which I am calling Rights and Freedoms of Chinese Canadians (RFCC), to advocate for Chinese Canadians in the face of growing Anti-Asian discrimination and stigmatization.

100 years after the enactment of the Chinese Exclusion Act, new forms of exclusion directed at Chinese Canadians and Canadians with links to China are becoming accepted as social and political norms. The weaponization of foreign interference narratives has fostered suspicions about Chinese Canadians and others based on little more than rumours, innuendo, and prejudice. The presumption of disloyalty among Canadians who are involved in improving relations with China or who simply do not accept prevailing narratives about a "China Threat" has resulted in their stigmatization, sometimes resulting in adverse consequences for their careers.  

External pressure, groupthink, and domestic politics have entrenched some of these prejudices into policy and law.  Anti-Chinese sentiment has even spilled into domestic hot button issues such as housing affordability, school enrollment, and social cohesion. The broadest description of this phenomenon is "scapegoating" and while it is a phenomenon that affects most visible minority groups, Chinese Canadians face a unique set of challenges because of the current geopolitical context.

RFCC will document and investigate abuses of charter rights and freedoms that are dressed up as foreign interference or national security threats, or which are based on little more than prejudice against Canadians because of hostility towards China. 

In addition to research and documentation, RFCC will have an educational and advocacy function – to raise awareness about injustice and abuses of charter rights, as well as to counter negative public narratives about Chinese Canadians and the Chinese community. While the organization will not in the first instance be able to offer legal services, I hope it will serve as a platform to mobilise civil liberties lawyers and scholars in the defence of wrongly accused Canadians.

It would document discrimination and stigmatization of Canadians because of where they come from, the views they hold, and the groups they associate with. It would advocate for the rights of Canadians, especially Chinese Canadians, to participate fully and freely in Canadian democracy and campaign against efforts to curtail their rights through arbitrary and draconian laws such as C-70. This organization would work with other minority groups who have faced and are facing similar discrimination and prejudice, for example Muslim and Palestinian Canadians. Let me be clear: This is an organization to protect Canadians and Canadian values; it is not about defending foreigners or acting on behalf of foreign agents. 

This is my ambition, but I cannot do it alone. If you are interested in helping out, let me know.

To conclude: The US-China geopolitical contest is not going away anytime soon.  The goal of the United States, regardless of administration, is American primacy in all domains. The goal of the Chinese state, regardless of leadership, is national rejuvenation. The two goals are antithetical.  About 10 years ago, Xi Jinping said the conflict will last 40 years.  That means we have another 30 years to go. He is probably right.  Both sides are hurting themselves and each other, but the contest is also causing harm to third parties and forcing them to take sides. 

It will be very difficult for Canada to not take sides with the US, especially on issues of national security. I believe, however, that we must find the path that gives us the largest degree of maneuver. It will take great courage and wisdom on the part of our leaders to navigate a security relationship with the US that does not discriminate against Canadian citizens or violate their rights. Canadians with ties to China, especially Chinese Canadians, will be targets and the powers that be will seek to justify curbs on some Chinese Canadians on very similar grounds as the ones used to defend the Chinese Exclusion Act. Worst of all, these policies and actions will be broadly popular with the public because Canadians have largely bought into the China threat narrative. Not everyone who takes this view is a racist, but the context is excellent for racists to act out their impulses.  We must do what we can to minimize the harms by raising awareness and building solidarity in our community. 

My closing message, therefore, is to all Chinese Canadians: We cannot let prejudice and ideology define who is a good Chinese Canadian and who isn’t. Chinese Canadians of different backgrounds – laojiao, mainlanders, Hong Kongers, Taiwanese, Southeast Asians, South Africans, Latin Americans, etc. should not be fighting each other. We don’t have to agree on sensitive political issues, but we must stand up for the rights and liberties of our community.  In so doing, we are defending what it means to be Canadian, and why we have chosen Canada as our home.

Let me again wish everyone a very happy, healthy, and prosperous New Year. We have nothing to fear from the Golden Snake, but we should be on our guard against evil serpents all around us. And we must strike back at them.

Thank you.