A chart of 23 government departments, agencies, committees, and processes dedicated to responding to foreign interference. Source: Final PIFI Report

Written by: Wawa Li and William Ging Wee Dere

The final report of the Public Inquiry on Foreign Interference (PIFI), released by Commissioner Marie-Josée Hogue on January 26, 2025, has become the subject of intense public scrutiny, especially within the Chinese Canadian community. Coincidentally, it came out days after US President Donald Trump threatened Canada with economic warfare.

The Foreign Interference Commission examined and assessed interference by China, Russia, and other foreign actors on the 2019 and 2021 general elections at both national and electoral district levels, including evaluating the flow of information to senior decision-makers and the capacity of federal institutions to detect, deter, and counter such interference. The 16-month inquiry heard from the intelligence and security establishment, civil servants, politicians, government officials and also held public hearings to investigate the integrity of Canada’s democratic processes and address any adverse impacts resulting from foreign interference. The total cost of the inquiry was over $9 million CAD. The report concluded that foreign interference on the two general elections was inconsequential.

One solid outcome of the PIFI inquiry is the exposing of the federal foreign interference bureaucracy. There are 23 federal entities, involved in responding to foreign interference in government departments, agencies, processes and deputy minister committees, as well as the offices of the Chief Electoral Officer and Elections Canada. On top of that, there are four review bodies like the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP). PIFI did not say how many people are employed in the search for foreign interference. However, if jobs are created to find FI, the efforts to find foreign interference could be limitless inside this bureaucracy.

Arguably, the inquiry, driven more by sensationalist media coverage, self-serving politicians and unverified intelligence than by rigorous investigation — relied on shallow reports and baseless witness claims to justify urgent government action. The danger of the narrative manufactured by the final report and through the inquiry about foreign interference, which has been weaponized by media, law enforcement, and opportunistic political forces, ultimately can serve as a tool for domestic repression that unfairly targets the Chinese Canadian community. Its impact is tangible; it undermines the right to fully participate in the democratic process; it affects the livelihoods of community members—from low-income individuals to academics and diaspora politicians—and denying them the right to live equally and safely under both Canadian and Québec human rights charters, while also crippling the essential work of community service centers. A crucial factor is the importance of understanding the profound harm inflicted by this manufactured fear. The true damage lies in the manipulation of public sentiment to marginalize dissenting voices and restrict democratic rights—a perspective that has been repeatedly sidelined throughout the inquiry – yet it wasn’t any less significant.

Examining the testimonies behind the final report

In the final report, the commission acknowledged that several testimonies lacked definitive links to China, yet unverified claims and opportunistic political narratives have heavily influenced the report. Unsubstantiated accounts — ranging from a formula[AJ1] purportedly identifying foreign agents based solely on community event participation to anonymous testimonies from a community concern group — have been used to paint Chinese organizations as proxies for the PRC. Selected examples, such as disputes at a museum opening and a controversial case aimed at stifling political debate, are cited without evidence, relying instead on hearsay, innuendos, and stereotypical warnings.

One of these warnings is that anyone who expresses a political opinion on the Chinese language social media WeChat is suspected of having connections to China. The recent fear mongering (Feb 7) is the unsubstantiated report by Security and Intelligence Threats to Elections Task Force (SITE), set up to monitor foreign election interference, that a “‘malicious’ campaign against Liberal leadership candidate Chrystia Freeland on the social media platform WeChat with alleged ties to China.”

The PIFI report has given the media and parliamentary committees free reign without having to provide proof. These baseless allegations are particularly alarming in a climate where a new law threatens lifelong imprisonment for anyone labeled as a foreign agent, echoing McCarthyite tactics that jeopardize open political discourse and undermine community trust.

Political opportunism and the manipulation of public sentiment

United by a common thread of opportunism, it is essential to highlight this recurring pattern and hold public figures accountable, as they are expected to act in the people's best interests while their actions profoundly impact ordinary citizens.

During PIFI hearings and the pre-testimony interview process, NDP MP Jenny Kwan claimed, based on her opinion, that she was excluded from community events. She implied that Chinese Canadian organizations are compelled to align with her mainstream narrative or risk being accused of foreign interference. She even offered her own formula for identifying foreign agents in Vancouver, suggesting that organizations which once welcomed her but have since stopped doing so are likely proxies for the PRC. For example, she pointed to the Chinese Canadian Museum’s decision not to invite her to the podium at its July 2023 opening as evidence of this interference. In retrospect, a Chinese Canadian senator noted that he, too, attended the event without being singled out, emphasizing that politicians do not have an inherent right to be invited to community events and that organizers should not be labeled as foreign agents out of personal spite.

Anonymous testimony, not under oath and without cross-examination taken as truth

Testimonies from the Chinese Canadian Concern Group on Chinese Communist Party Human Rights Violations underpinned many conclusions about interference and “transnational repression” in the community, even though the report acknowledged that these witnesses testified anonymously, without being under oath, nor subjected to cross-examination. Consequently, much of the report is based on hearsay, political opinions, and innuendo rather than solid evidence. This group received a grant totalling more than $334k from PIFI to testify, collaborated with the Inquiry and even boasted in its statement (January 30, 2025) on the Final PIFI Report:

“We are pleased that 15 of our recommendations were wholly or partially adopted, focusing on media, social media regulation, education, government engagement with diaspora communities, election integrity, a whole-of-government foreign interference strategy, combating misinformation, enhancing intelligence transparency, and national security measures.”

The political and ideological affinity between this group and the Inquiry Commission could not be more obvious.

The Commissioner's discussion of Conservative MP Michael Chong—who is considered a potential foreign minister under a potential Prime Minister Poilievre — suffers from the same lack of factual support, relying instead on stereotypes and unfounded claims like "your family is in danger," despite Chong having no close family ties in China or Hong Kong.

The report uses the case of former Conservative MP Kenneth Chiu to demonstrate Chinese interference and makes no mention of Senator Yuen Pau Woo's submission to counter Chiu's innuendos. This is an attack on the rights of the Chinese Canadian community to open political debate based on political differences and the rights of Chinese media to be able to counter politicians' political views and actions. The Chiu case used by the Commissioner of PIFI is a case of stifling open political debate. It is also an attack on Chinese social media WeChat used by over one million Chinese Canadians.

As cautioned by Senator Woo, these examples would be almost amusing if not for the consequences under a law that could imprison someone for life if labeled a foreign agent involved in political activity or to be "in association with" a foreign entity, e.g. attending a foreign embassy-hosted event; meeting foreign officials; sharing similar views; or maintaining ties with organizations linked to one’s country of origin. Witnesses at the Foreign Interference Inquiry, including prominent human rights activists in Vancouver, have accused Chinese community leaders of being foreign agents without evidence, seemingly aiming to have these leaders prosecuted under C-70 — the law to “counter foreign interference.”

In contrast, the new US Attorney General, Pam Bondi has ended criminal enforcement of the American Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), after which C-70 was based. Many Republicans objected to FARA when it was used to charge Trump supporters such as Paul Manafort. This shows the utilitarian nature of such a foreign interference law when it could be used to arrest and jail political adversaries. This contrasts to the case of Li Tang “Henry” Liang, Boston hotel worker and union activist charged under FARA in 2023 for advocating peaceful relations between the US and China. Mr. Liang was found not guilty in a Boston court on February 10, 2025, following a six-day trial, after being charged as an agent of China.

The impact, the repression and fearmongering of foreign interference hysteria on Chinese Canadian rights

The PIFI report notably omits how national repression undermines the democratic rights of the Chinese Canadian community — a reality brought into sharp focus by the case of Service à la famille chinoise du Grand Montréal and its sister organization, Centre Sino-Québec. In March 2023, following information from a Spanish NGO, the RCMP announced to the media an investigation into alleged clandestine “Chinese police stations” operating from these organizations. To date, no charges have been filed, and the RCMP has provided no details on what constitutes a clandestine police station.

The repercussions have been severe: critical community services—from French-language instruction for new immigrants, legal and employment advice, senior recreation and youth internships—have been sharply curtailed amid government funding cuts immediately following media reports. Last spring, the stigmatization stemming from these allegations led to tenant losses, prompting a bank to refuse the renewal of the community center’s mortgage. In a desperate bid to keep the center afloat, board directors used their own assets as collateral to secure an extended loan, and in March 2024, the organizations filed a lawsuit against the RCMP—a suit that remains unanswered.

The only mention in the PIFI report of the “Chinese police station” is that the RCMP has deployed “disruptive tactics.” An example could be the parking of a mega bus in July 2024 in the heart of Chinatown and a squad of police agents going door to door, disrupting businesses and residents. Chinatown people were intimidated by the police presence and kept silent.

In response to the mounting crisis the organizations, led by executive director Ms. Xixi Li and Carole Cheung, President of the Board of Chinese Family Services of Greater Montreal, launched a defamation suit against the RCMP in March 2024. “It is unfortunate that the actions of the RCMP have caused so much suffering,” Cheung stated. The RCMP has twice requested delays with the court case—stalling first for nine months and then for an additional four months. If there are no more delays, the RCMP is expected to respond to the lawsuit by May 2025.

Carole Cheung, President of the Board of Chinese Family Services of Greater Montreal said:

"It is deeply regrettable that the actions of the RCMP have caused nearly two years of suffering for our community through the loss of essential services. We no longer have French classes in Chinatown or Brossard; our support for vulnerable seniors and women experiencing intimate partner violence has been diminished; our intake services for new immigrants have been curtailed; and we have lost vital assistance in employment research. We have cooperated with the RCMP investigation from the beginning, and we urge them to allocate the necessary resources to complete the investigation as soon as possible and to stop the bleeding of social services for our community."

Amidst these developments, the PIFI report also makes sweeping and unsubstantiated claims about the People’s Republic of China (PRC), labeling it the most active perpetrator of foreign interference targeting Canada’s democratic institutions and deeming Canada a “high priority target” — a claim made without justification, evidence or logic. By relying heavily on hearsay and insinuation, the report contends that China uses the Chinese Canadian community as a proxy for its “repressive” agenda, thereby casting suspicion on community members. Furthermore, the report’s gratuitous statements—that China seeks to control diaspora communities, shape international opinions, and influence Canadian politicians — blur the line between legitimate security concerns and racist fearmongering and profiling.

A century after the infamous Chinese Exclusion Act, a new form of exclusion is emerging — one that does not target all Chinese people in Canada but seeks instead to divide Chinese Canadians into “Good Chinese” and “Bad Chinese.” The so-called “Bad Chinese” are those who hold views that may be sympathetic to the PRC or associate with groups considered enemies of the West. They are made to feel that they don’t belong here. Traditional anti-racism and human rights groups have largely failed to recognize this subtle yet dangerous threat, often justifying the suppression of rights for these individuals based solely on their perceived political leanings or associations with the Chinese government. As new forms of exclusion become normalized, the weaponization of foreign interference narratives has fostered suspicions about Chinese Canadians and others based on little more than rumors, innuendo, and prejudice. This presumption of disloyalty — targeting those who work to improve relations with China or reject prevailing narratives about a “China Threat” — has led to their stigmatization and, in some cases, adverse consequences for their careers and livelihood.

In essence, what might be dismissed as bureaucratic overreach is, in reality, a deliberate strategy of national repression through intimidation, aimed at suppressing democratic activity within the Chinese Canadian community. Both the hollow allegations and the resulting financial and social devastation experienced by community centers like Chinese Family Service underscore a broader assault on the rights and services that are vital to the community’s well-being.

How anti-China bias and institutional racism shape policy

The report fuels an anti-China narrative that has intensified anti-Asian hate and led to the discrimination and stigmatization of Canadians with connections to China, particularly Chinese Canadians. Out of 51 recommendations, not one addresses systemic racism, racial profiling, or the exclusion that arises from misleading intelligence accusations, all of which undermine the democratic rights of the Chinese Canadian community. Instead, the report relies on vague assertions that cast a dark cloud over Chinese Canadians—a reflection of Canada’s broader, problematic perception of China that echoes the historic "Yellow Peril." The only reference to stigmatization is used to suggest that it could benefit foreign actors, rather than acknowledging its real impact. Notably, there was no Chinese Canadian member on the PIFI Commission, underscoring the existing institutional biases.

This pervasive bias is further entrenched by external pressures, groupthink, and domestic policies that have now permeated issues such as housing affordability, school enrollment, and social cohesion. Although scapegoating is a challenge faced by many visible minorities, Chinese Canadians are uniquely affected by the current geopolitical context. The PIFI Report exemplifies this trend. Meanwhile, the panic over alleged foreign interference has smoothed the way for draconian measures like Bill C-70, which can be used to silence, stigmatize, intimidate, and even incarcerate Canadians for holding views that might align with a foreign state. Ironically, such a law may dissuade immigrants with ties to their home countries from engaging in Canadian politics — a paradox that might have been intended all along.

Canada’s policy towards China is reflected in its attitude towards Chinese Canadians. Yellow Peril thinking of the 19th century paved the way for the Head Tax and Chinese Exclusion Act when China was weak and the “sick man of Asia.” Today, China is strong and challenging the West for a place in the global economy. The present spectre of the Yellow Peril (fear of the Chinese threatening white or western hegemony) is reflected in the “China Threat” and Chinese interference. This translates to Sinophobia against Chinese Canadians who do not adhere to the mainstream narrative as spelled out by PIFI.

Rethinking Canada's foreign interference narrative

The Public Inquiry on Foreign Interference report, largely sidesteps the significant role of the U.S.-driven disinformation. While Commissioner Hogue warns that disinformation is Canada's greatest threat, she omits the fact that the United States is arguably the most consequential source of such falsehoods. By suggesting that neutralizing disinformation from China, Russia, India, and Iran (all BRICS countries) will secure Canada, the report offers a dangerously misleading narrative.

BC Senator Yuen Pau Woo, speaking at the Vancouver Chinese Cultural Center on Feb 2, 2025, criticized this narrow focus, noting that many Canadian opinion leaders are caught in a collective delusion driven by ideological blinkers and outdated prejudices. Despite myths about Canada’s unique friendship with China since the 1970s, an instinct to demonize China remains deeply ingrained. While there are concerns about China's economic and social challenges — Canadians, under the auspices of PIFI, do not have the right to interfere in China’s internal affairs. Portraying China as an existential threat to Canada is, in Senator Woo's view, sheer insanity.

Furthermore, the Senator warned that the growing pressure to align with the U.S. on national security matters — spanning foreign influence, espionage, cybercrime, intellectual property theft, and sensitive research collaborations — will inevitably affect Canada's policy decisions. He argued that it will take considerable courage and wisdom for Canadian leaders to navigate a security relationship with the U.S. without discriminating against citizens or infringing on their rights. In this climate, Chinese Canadians, especially those with ties to China, risk becoming scapegoats for policies reminiscent of the Chinese Exclusion Act, which emerged following the Royal Commission on Chinese Immigration. Tragically, these measures are likely to gain broad public support, as many Canadians have already bought into the pervasive "China threat" narrative. Although not every proponent of this view is overtly racist, the current context undoubtedly provides fertile ground for racist impulses to flourish. To mitigate these harms, the Senator urged increased awareness and solidarity within the Chinese Canadian community.

Senator Woo stated, in his February 2, 2025, speech:

“We must resist this emerging form of Chinese exclusion. To champion our rights and freedoms, I intend to establish an organization—tentatively called Rights and Freedoms of Chinese Canadians—because this is not a battle I can fight alone. My final appeal to all Chinese Canadians is this: we must not allow prejudice or ideology to dictate who qualifies as a "good" Chinese Canadian. … We must unite rather than allow divisions to weaken our collective strength.

We must also remember the trials faced by our community centers, such as Chinese Family Services, which have borne the brunt of baseless allegations and crippling financial hardships. The resilience of these centers—rescued by the united efforts of community members—serves as a powerful testament to our strength and unity. Their perseverance is a call to action for all of us to come together, support one another, and protect our democratic rights against any form of exclusion.”

Wawa Li is a multidisciplinary artist-researcher in digital arts and decolonial anthropology at Concordia University. The core of her research lies in the literature of resistance movements and art as a technology of liberation. She is an active member of the Housing Rights Committee affiliated with Montreal’s Chinatown Roundtable (since 2021) and has worked as a research assistant in artificial intelligence for the Indigenous Futures Research Center at Concordia University (2023). Above all, she is a family elder and a Yang-style Tai Chi apprentice. She testified at the PIFI public hearings but to no avail.

William Ging Wee Dere is a documentary filmmaker and author of “Being Chinese in Canada, The Struggle for Identity, Redress and Belonging.” (Douglas & McIntyre, 2019), winner of the 2020 Blue Metropolis/Conseil des arts de Montréal Diversity Prize. He was a leading activist in the 2-decade movement to redress the Chinese Head Tax and Exclusion Act.

Editor’s note: The Canada Files is the country's only news outlet focused on Canadian foreign policy. We've provided critical investigations & hard-hitting analysis on Canadian foreign policy since 2019, and need your support.

Please consider setting up a monthly or annual donation through Donorbox.

More Articles

Featured