Senator Yuen Pau Woo

You do not have to agree with a Canadian who aligns with Beijing’s position on a given issue. But you should not assume that alignment is an indicator of foreign interference.

We should be united against foreign interference from all sources, especially transnational repression. But who decides which People's Republic of China narrative is a litmus test of foreign interference, asks Sen. Yuen Pau Woo.

OPINION   |   BY: ISG SENATOR YUEN PAU WOO

Another week, another example of unserious thinking on the serious problem of foreign interference.

The latest is the Montreal Institute of Global Security’s (MIGS) report Guarding the G7: Countering Beijing’s Interference Operations. It is a rehash of open-source material already available in multiple places, reported with the same uncritical analysis and ideological prejudice.

The report devotes a whole chapter to Canada. In the absence of hard evidence on direct Chinese government interference or concrete examples of law-breaking, the report resorts to vague language and sweeping insinuations: “… interference often operates through subtle targeted messaging, reputational pressure, and strategic use of diaspora networks, exploiting the difficulty of attribution and the legal boundaries of democratic politics.”

To be clear, we should be united against foreign interference from all sources, especially transnational repression. Parliament passed Bill C-70 in 2024, which strengthened the ability of law enforcement to prosecute cases of “foreign-influenced or terrorist-influenced intimidation, threats or violence.” But that is not what the MIGS report focuses on.

It cites a recent publication from the Washington, D.C.,-based Jamestown Foundation, which asserts that 575 Chinese Canadian organizations are, in effect, tools of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). No evidence is offered except that these organizations “may serve legitimate community functions while simultaneously facilitating messaging aligned with PRC [People’s Republic of China] narratives.”

The report does not reveal which are the tell-tale PRC narratives to watch out for. Support for higher imports of Chinese electric vehicles? A belief that Canada should not have relented to United States pressure for the detention of Meng Wanzhou? That there is no genocide in Xinjiang? Opposition to Canadian sanctions on Hong Kong’s officials?

Who decides which PRC narrative is a litmus test of foreign interference? Do we apply the same kinds of tests to Canadians who support narratives of the U.S. or Israel with which we are uncomfortable?

The effect of such sweeping claims is to cast all Chinese Canadian community organizations as potential foreign agents. It is textbook McCarthyism. It also invites a kind of stigmatization of and discrimination against Chinese Canadians that would not be tolerated in any other minority community.

Take Chinese Family Services of Greater Montreal, and Centre Sino-Quebec—two organizations accused by the RCMP of hosting “Chinese police stations,” with no evidence provided. The MIGS report makes the dishonest and implausible claim that the police stopped the investigation after two years because the organizations filed a defamation lawsuit.

The more obvious explanation is that the RCMP’s investigation did not uncover any unlawful activity, which is why they did not file any charges. Both the RCMP and MIGS claim the Chinese police station activities have been “shut down,” but they have not told anyone (including the affected organizations) what those activities were in the first place. It is tantamount to claiming to have a solved a great mystery but not revealing what the mystery was.

Did MIGS researchers bother to walk a few blocks from their offices to visit Chinese Family Services to get a better understanding of the case? Or were they so confident in their prejudice as to repeat a baseless accusation that stigmatizes an organization which has provided French-language training, counselling services, and recreation activities to Chinatown residents for 50 years?

The report’s extended discussion on Chinese influence networks in Canada reflects this muddled thinking. It cites examples of individuals and organizations, especially in Quebec, that were involved in “legitimate economic exchange,” but were nevertheless “aligned with broader CCP strategies of engaging overseas Chinese communities and cultivating elite networks abroad.”

This framework for understanding foreign interference is reductionist and mechanistic. It reduces all exchanges with China (economic or otherwise) to a test of alignment with broader CCP strategies, and it assumes the Canadian principals involved in exchanges (especially Chinese Canadians) are automatons who have no ability to hold independent views on issues related to China. The report has special scorn for “elite networks” that are “captured” by their ties with China, as if business and political elites in Canada do not also cultivate special relationships with other countries.

When Chinese Canadians exercise their agency, for example in protesting anti-Asian hate during COVID, the MIGS report brushes it off as adapting to “Canadian values and discourse with messaging framed in terms of dialogue, anti-discrimination, or geopolitical complexity, while subtly advancing perspectives aligned with the strategic interests of the CCP.”

Why are they giving credit to the CCP for addressing a deep-rooted malaise that Canadians have long identified and fought against? It is a slavishness of thought that comes from deeply rooted ideological prejudice and motivated reasoning.

The report even goes as far as to claim that a position of neutrality on Beijing’s claim over Taiwan, and Canadian narratives on this issue that are “portrayed as complex” are examples of CCP influence operations aimed at alignment with the PRC over the longer term. If the authors of the report are suggesting that cross-straits issues are simple and unambiguous, they haven’t been paying attention to domestic politics in Taiwan, the positions of neighbouring countries, questions around the U.S. presence in Asia, or the history of China.

In any case, the Government of Canada does not take a position on Beijing’s claim over Taiwan, which means a Canadian taking a “neutral” position on this issue is following Ottawa’s lead, not Beijing’s. 

You do not have to agree with a Canadian who aligns with Beijing’s position on a given issue. But you should not assume that alignment with Beijing on one or more issues is an indicator of foreign interference. Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Davos speech describing a rupture in the international system and acknowledging that the system has favoured western countries at the expense of others is as aligned with a Beijing meta-narrative as any. If the PM is not accused of being a toady of the CCP, it is because he does not carry the burden of being Chinese Canadian.

Independent Senator Yuen Pau Woo represents British Columbia, and is the founder of Canadians United Against Modern Exclusion.

Published in The Hill Times