To： Consultation Committee of C70 ( Honorable Marie-Josée Hogue and counsel of the commission of the Public Inquiry Into Foreign Interference in Federal Electoral Processes and Democratic Institutions )
We have thoroughly examined the content of the “Foreign Interference (C70)” bill. On the surface, it appears unproblematic. As Canadian citizens, we have a duty to assist the government in investigating foreign interference and a right to express our views, hoping the government takes them seriously. However, examining the bill’s(C70) proponents, motives, and objectives reveals significant issues related to national and public interest versus political agendas and personal vendettas. Objectively, this C70 has serious flaws.
1. We have immigrated to Canada about thirty years ago and have experienced various political transitions and witnessed the elections and non-elections of numerous legislators. Recently, however, Chinese-born legislators have faced baseless suspicion and stigmatization. This raises questions about the bill’s true intent. Where is it leading the electorate?
2. Canada is a multicultural country that values diversity and respect for all ethnic groups, regardless of origin. Immigrants from China, including mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan, like all other immigrants, enjoy equal rights to participate in elections and vote once they become citizens. Candidates from all backgrounds use their native languages to promote their platforms and encourage civic participation. Chinese-Canadian candidates are no different. Why, then, are mainland-born Canadian citizens’ elections suspected of foreign interference?
3. Participation in elections is a constitutional right. Over the past thirty years, we have supported various candidates, including those from different ethnic backgrounds. Voters choose candidates based on their understanding of their platforms, their dedication to serving the community, and their loyalty to Canada, their parties, and their constituents. Volunteers and voters typically do not support candidates they do not understand or who cannot represent their community.
4. Immigrants from all countries have a connection to their homelands. For example, Ukrainian-Canadian candidates may have a special interest in their ancestral country. Once elected, they often continue to support their communities and advocate for their ancestral nations. For Chinese immigrants, Canada is our new home, and Chinese law recognizes only single citizenship. Our loyalty to Canada’s national interests is therefore even more steadfast than immigrants from countries that allow dual citizenship.
5. Setting aside political factors, it is natural for people to maintain ties to their birthplaces. However, Chinese-born Canadians who participate in politics face unwarranted suspicion and stigmatization. This deters future political participation. Why are individuals from Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, and other countries with dual citizenship privileges not similarly scrutinized? Is the motivation behind this bi truly to benefit Canada, or is it a means to question the loyalty of those who contribute significantly to the country?
6. The “Foreign Interference C70” bill has long been controversial. Public information clearly shows the bill’s originators and motives. The list of investigated legislators reveals a racially discriminatory agenda, politically motivated to exploit Canada’s democratic and civil rights. It specifically targets Chinese immigrants and aims to sever their ties with their heritage. This is a clear violation of human rights and democracy.
By Mali Zhang and Cecilia Yu