By Dr. Ally Wang
As the federal election approaches, discussions within the community regarding foreign interference (FI) and Bill C-70 have once again gained momentum.
The Imperfections of C-70
Let’s start with Bill C-70. This legislation was almost unanimously passed in both the House of Commons and the Senate in June 2024. This means that it was not solely introduced or passed by any one political party, but rather a collective effort of Canadian political circles.
What potential loopholes exist in C-70? As Senator Yuen Pau Woo stated in his public report to the Foreign Interference Inquiry Commission:
“The Foreign Influence Transparency Registry, which is part of Bill C-70, requires anyone who is “in association with” a foreign principal to register if they take part in activities “ about a political or governmental process in Canada.” likely, the test of being “in association with” a foreign principal will default to the views held by the individual in question rather than any consistent and meaningful definition of what it means to be “in association with” that foreign principal.
If it were simply the case that registration was a nuisance for Canadians who might be captured under the expansive definition of the bill, that would be tolerable. After all, we already put up with a lot of bureaucratic form-filling of dubious value. The graver risk is for Canadians who, in good faith, fail to register because they do not consider themselves to be “in association with” a foreign entity and are subsequently prosecuted under Part 2 of C-70 for, among other things, “the exercise of a democratic right in Canada”. The maximum penalty for such an offence is life imprisonment.”
In a rule-of-law nation, well-crafted legislation is crucial. With the federal election approaching, I sincerely hope that candidates understand the implications of C-70 so that they can improve it once elected. This should not be a partisan issue—whether left, center, or right—but a matter of basic common sense. If a law aimed at managing foreign interference lacks clarity and fails to define what constitutes foreign interference, how can it effectively combat real foreign threats? Without proper definitions, false accusations may arise, or genuine cases of foreign interference could slip through the cracks.
Questionable Mainstream Media Reporting
In a rule-of-law country like Canada, how was it possible for both houses of Parliament to push through such an incomplete bill in such a short period? Some insights can be drawn from Senator Woo’s summary of the Foreign Interference Inquiry:
Since the 2019 federal election, it “has allowed for a steady stream of information on FI to be leaked or publicly released, leading to rampant speculation on the issue. At the same time, the FI debate in Canada has become deeply politicized, with partisan actors seeking political advantage based on selective, self-serving interpretations of the ‘evidence’”.
The rise of the “foreign interference” narrative was not only the result of political forces but also deeply connected to long-standing, unfounded accusations against the Chinese community in English-language media.
For example, on April 30, 2020, Global News published an article by investigative journalist Sam Cooper, titled “All Overseas Chinese Are Warriors”. The key claims in this report were:
- Before the global pandemic outbreak, overseas Chinese donated PPE to China under the alleged instructions of the United Front Work Department of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
- 50 million overseas Chinese could potentially be manipulated by the CCP as spies.
Following this, Cooper published a series of similar “exposing” articles.
- In April 2022, he linked the murders of two Chinese women in Vancouver’s West Side to their alleged involvement with the CCP.
- He accused the Quanzhou Association of Canada of having over 100 members with alleged ties to the CCP.
Despite protests from affected organizations and community members, the media refused to retract or correct these claims. Under the banner of “press freedom”, Cooper’s investigative journalism continued unchecked.
- In September 2024, Cooper released an article “exposing” a former RCMP officer for allegedly working for the CCP. His “evidence”? A scene from a 2015 Hong Kong movie starring Chow Yun-fat, where the officer had played a minor role. This movie clip was presented as “proof” of espionage.
While such allegations may seem absurd, mainstream media’s “labelling tactics” heavily influence public perception.
- In January 2022, according to a report by Sing Tao Daily, internal documents from the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) stated:
“China has the world’s largest, most disorganized, yet most active intelligence network. Any Chinese person, especially those from mainland China—from students to CEOs—should be considered potential intelligence assets.”
Dubious and Unverified “Evidence”
In the media storm, any activities or individuals connected to China (PRC) have come under suspicion. The paranoia has reached such a level that many people now avoid taking photos with Chinese consular officials at community events—for fear that a simple photograph could be used as “evidence” against them.
One of the most egregious examples of baseless accusations is the “Chinese overseas police stations” controversy in Vancouver and Quebec.
- A Spanish human rights group first claimed that a Wenzhou police station had set up an office in Vancouver to assist Chinese citizens in renewing driver’s licenses during the pandemic.
- Days later, the Wenzhou Association of Canada became the target of an RCMP investigation, despite having no ties to the alleged station.
- The Quebec case involved two immigrant settlement organizations falsely accused of hosting “Chinese police stations”. Their operations were severely disrupted, pushing them to the brink of bankruptcy.
Although no concrete evidence has ever been presented, the damage has already been done. Media outlets continue to report on these “police stations” as though they were established facts.
The Need for a Rational Approach to Foreign Interference
- In March 2023, Trudeau appointed former Governor General David Johnston to review foreign interference claims. His May 2023 report concluded:
- No public inquiry was necessary.
- There was no evidence that Chinese funds were directed at candidates in the 2019 federal election.
- False accusations against MP Han Dong by Global News were unsubstantiated.
- In September 2023, Quebec Judge Marie-Josée Hogue was appointed to conduct an official public inquiry into foreign interference.
- Her May 2024 report confirmed that while foreign interference did occur, it did not compromise the integrity of Canada’s electoral system.
- Her final report in February 2025 reaffirmed:
- No evidence of traitors in Parliament colluding with foreign states.
- No evidence that foreign interference affected legislative decisions.
- No evidence supporting the accusations against Han Dong.
Now that this prolonged foreign interference controversy is coming to an end, it is time for media, politicians, and the public to be more responsible when making accusations—by relying on actual evidence, not speculation.
Canada’s legal system does not operate on “suspicions” alone. However, the Foreign Interference Inquiry website is filled with reports based on “I heard,” “I suspect,” and even mistranslated documents. If these issues remain unaddressed, Canada’s democracy will continue to suffer.
In the upcoming federal election, Canada must take a balanced approach—neither neglecting genuine threats nor descending into McCarthyism. False accusations only serve to divide society and undermine trust in our democratic institutions.
Dr. Ally Wang, a former business professional turned full-time writer, now resides in Canada. A strong advocate of the idea that “your worldview shapes your reality,” she emphasizes the importance of finding joy and self-entertainment in life’s challenges. Dr. Wang shares her insights on a range of topics, from lifestyle and education to current events, aiming to broaden perspectives and stimulate meaningful discussions.
Disclaimer
Voices & Bridges publishes opinions like this from the community to encourage constructive discussion and debate on important issues. Views represented in the articles are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the V&B.