【加拿大共生国际传媒讯】
编者按：加拿大启动“外国影响力透明度登记”公众咨询以来，在华人社区引起极大反响。为了帮助读者深刻思考，积极有效行使民主权力，特刊发华裔联邦参议员胡元豹(Senator Yuen Pau Woo)致联邦公共安全部马守诺部长（Minister Mendicino）关于“外国影响力透明度登记”的公开信中文版，供读者参考。在此感谢中文版译者：半张，中文版首发刊物：《高度周刊》。
联邦参议员胡元豹
2023年4月18日
尊敬的部长先生：
我写本信的目的是为了就拟议的“外国影响力透明度登记”提出我的反馈意见。鉴于这个问题的重要性以及我对“登记”背后的冲击力的担忧，我特将此信公布与众。
我感谢贵部已启动公众咨询，并正在就六个具体问题寻求反馈意见。恕我直言，这六个问题本身存在明显的错误或不足。恰恰相反，我们应该首先明确登记试图解决的具体问题是什么，以及所提出的解决方案是否是弊大于利。
问题出在哪里？
贵部的咨询文件明确指出，问题是“外国干涉”，其中“恶意外国影响”是其中的一个组成部分。
该咨询文件中提供的外国干涉的例子是，对加拿大社区的骚扰和恐吓，灌输恐惧，压制异议并向政治对手施加压力。这些行为确实是不可接受的。但根据《刑法》第423条，骚扰和恐吓已经是犯罪行为。如果外国行为者或其代理人进行骚扰和恐吓，则应依法起诉该行为者。如果这种行为可能不受惩罚，这表明需要加强执法或加强法律，而不是登记外国影响。
咨询文件试图说明登记以应对“恶意外国影响”的理由，但对什么是恶意影响的解释含糊不清。文中给出的具体例子令人脊背发凉。文中这样写道，我在此整段引用如下：
受雇于外国政府的个人要求一位著名的加拿大学者写一篇专栏文章，反对加拿大政府对特定国际问题的态度，并敦促加拿大人也不同意。这位学者撰写了专栏文章，并发表在一份广泛发行的全国性报纸上。该学者还被要求与校园内的学生团体接触，以倡导有利于外国政府的观点。学者没有透露他们与外国政府雇用的个人的关系。这就是恶意外国影响的一个例子，因为影响活动是秘密进行的。文章中所代表的外国利益以及与学生团体的接触并不透明。
这个引用的例子本身冒犯了加拿大人所珍视的许多价值观，包括国际主义和对世界的开放，结社自由，言论自由和思想自由。它还将与外国政府互动的加拿大人描绘成没有个人判断能力的媚外的骗子和外国政府的代理。人们可以很容易地将一位（加拿大）著名学者与外国官员的会面想象为加拿大对该国影响的一个例子。为什么我们会变得如此不自信，以至于每次与外国政府的相遇都只会臆想成“外国人”如何影响我们，而不是相反？
可以想象，从事外国相关问题的学者偶尔与该国的官员会面和互动不足为奇。同样不足为奇的是，有专家在阐述一些与加拿大相去甚远的议题时，其显著性往往会难以引起国内听众的共鸣，但可能与外国政府的观点出现雷同。而该学者会与学生团体分享这些观点，这是作为教师工作的一部分，而不是颠覆行为。
除非政府认定与某些外国政府的互动是非法的，否则无法确定加拿大人在与外国政府官员会面后撰写的评论文章是否属于“恶意外国影响”案件。在这种情况下，该意见很可能因为文章中表达的观点而不是任何有意义的“安排”证据而被视为“恶意”。这相当于说，“恶意”的定义，与外国干涉无关，而与一个人的思想观点有关。这种做法几乎令我们向专制和专制政权的所作所为看齐，不禁令人不寒而栗。
错误的解决方案
这是一个极具讽刺意味的外国影响力登记。表面上是为了对抗专制政权的干涉，但我从许多在这种政权中长大的加拿大人那里听到的一个共同评论是，拟议的登记做法类似于他们当年曾遭受过的痛苦 — 并最终选择了离开而来到加拿大。
还有另一种定义“恶意”外国影响的方法，咨询文件中暗示了这一点。它只将来自某些国家的想法和观点归类为有害。这些国家的简写是“专制”、“非志同道合”和“不民主”。根据这一结构，登记将针对此类国家的名单，基本上包括这些国家官方和非官方的所有实体，因为所有这些国家的实体都可能受政府的指导和控制。
这是一种“包罗万象”的方法，将会影响与上述指定国家保持联系的成千上万的加拿大人。这将迫使他们要么选择登记，要么切断与该国的联系。例如，可以包括与校友会、文化和体育团体、商业俱乐部、市政当局和亲属机构的联系。
这种做法将导致许多灰色地带，在这些灰色地带，登记的需要由 政府安全部门酌情决定。在没有任何证据表明与外国有实质性安排的情况下，登记标准将不可避免地默认为个人或组织的观点。这再次相当于将外国干涉定义为当时政府部门认为不可接受的观点。欢迎来到“非加拿大活动登记处”！
即使许多这样的个人和组织在某一届政府下免于登记，也不能保证他们不会被要求在另一届政府登记。无论如何，这种解决办法的根本问题不在于最终进行登记的实体对象有多少，而在于登记与否总是笼罩着受到登记威胁的社区被污名化，以及公民话语和政治参与的寒蝉效应也将降临到整个社区。
反华情绪助长反亚裔仇恨
我们已经在加拿大华人社区中目睹了这种寒意，特别是因为匿名消息来源无情地指控外国干涉涉及加拿大华裔政客和有大量华裔加拿大人的选区。批评中国或强调已有实证的来自中国的干涉加拿大内政， 绝不是种族主义。然而，基于不足证据或根本没有证据地对加拿大华人忠诚度的持续质疑，就带有种族主义的味道。形形色色的政治领导人纵容和教唆一些无原则和不负责任的记者的诽谤和影射，这是可耻的。
贵政府一再对外国干涉的威胁发表含糊的评论，而没有说明这些行为是什么，这无济于事。加拿大人，尤其是少数族裔，如果不知道外国干涉是什么，就无法阻止外国干涉。如果媒体报道可信，与中国外交官的会面、对中国“友好”的候选人参选，以及反对外国代理人登记的意见都是外国干涉的例子，是这样吗？
众所周知，自2019年以来，反亚裔仇恨激增，各政治派别的领导人一致谴责这一现象。然而，很少人有勇气承认，针对华人和其他亚裔加拿大人的种族主义的最大驱动力，就是加拿大日益增长的反华情绪。拟议的登记，也是由同样的观点驱动所致，很少考虑它是否会真正起作用，以及对加拿大人的负面影响。
外国影响本身就是定义加拿大的一部分
通过选择外国影响力登记，而不是详细说明什么被认为是不可接受的外国干涉，政府就是变相承认它不能明确区分良性和恶意的外国影响。它宁愿冒着陷入污名化登记对象的加拿大人的风险，也不愿提供可能不构成外国干涉的恶意外国影响的例子。外国影响既是一个来源地的问题，更是一个实质内容的问题。一个只关注来自威权国家的外国影响的登记，忽略了来自其他国家和非国家行为者的影响，这些影响在规模和范围上肯定要大得多。认为后一类外国影响很小，而且大多是良性的，这是极端幼稚的。简而言之，外国在加拿大的影响力是普遍的，这符合一个重视国际主义的开放型经济，并以移民和多元文化为荣的国家。试图使用原籍国和政府类型等粗糙的标签对外国影响类型进行分类是徒劳和有害的。
黄金法则
己所不欲勿施于人。
加拿大议员、外交官和其他官员经常与海外的利益相关者就对加拿大重要的问题进行交流。事实上，我们的外交官员积极寻求影响外国的决策，以有利于加拿大的利益。为此，他们不仅与外国政府官员交谈，还与学者、商界和民间社会领袖，甚至持不同政见者交谈——始终在他们开展业务的国家的法律范围内进行。我们应该期待外国驻加拿大代表也这样做，外国代理人在加拿大领土上的任何违规行为就应该受到法律惩罚。
但是，要求在加拿大登记与国家有关的外国影响力，这为其他国家采取对等行动打开了大门，这对加拿大企业、非政府组织、学者和海外援助工作者来说可能是非常成问题的。事实上，这是欧盟（正确地）抗议格鲁吉亚政府最近提出的外国代理人法的基础，但它也指出了在被认为可以接受和不可接受的外国影响种类上双重标准的虚伪性。当我们资助世界各地的民主促进活动时，我们用什么理由反对外国政府鼓励其侨民（没有偏袒、胁迫或腐败地）参加加拿大选举？
“五眼联盟”怎么做？
登记的支持者喜欢指出美国和澳大利亚的类似立法，并质疑为什么加拿大没有效仿。
这是一个错误的问题。相反，我们应该问问，美国和澳大利亚的经验是否减少了恶意的外国影响和外国干涉，以及这些好处是否超过了官僚主义的烦冗、社会污名和有毒的政治环境的代价。我的评估是，外国影响/代理人登记的成本远远高于任何微薄的好处。这里有一个简单的测试：自1938年《外国代理人登记法》通过以来，美国受到的恶意外国影响是否减少？
最近的一个例子指出了《外国代理人登记法》过度扩张的危险。在一位美国参议员和国会议员的敦促下，专注于当代中国和美中关系的在线新闻门户网站“中国项目”（The China Project）成为《外国代理人登记法》规定的登记目标。这场事件的起因不是基于任何与中国政府有实质性联系的证据，而是基于“中国项目”的内容及其主要背景。事实证明，该组织不仅与中国政府无关，而且其帖子和博文在中华人民共和国是被禁止。
澳大利亚的例子同样令人沮丧。堪培拉的外国影响力透明度计划（FITS）被广泛视为“黑名单”，导致登记人的声誉受损，并对澳大利亚的良性外国互动产生寒蝉效应。据估计，尽管FITS已经实施了四年多，但澳大利亚的外国干涉活动仍处于历史最高水平。虽然有些人会主张加强FITS，但更直观的结论是，登记计划首先是对抗外国干涉的错误工具。
我们不是美国或澳大利亚
加拿大不必效仿美国和澳大利亚还有另一个原因。我们不是美国或澳大利亚，这两个国家在种族关系方面有着不同的历史和精神。
加拿大并非没有自己的种族主义黑暗历史，首先是针对原住民，也针对犹太人、爱尔兰人、乌克兰人、杜霍博尔人、意大利人、锡克教徒、日本人、泰米尔人、印度教徒、中国人等等。但今天，我们庆祝加拿大是一个移民国家，我们接受多元文化主义的概念。如果多元文化主义不仅仅是一个口号，它必须意味着我们不会将“外国”解释为“可疑”，或者更糟的是“威胁”。它还应该意味着我们的领导人决心培养一种政治文化，这种文化就是试图通过开放、教育和对话，而不是审查和污名化来区分对我们社会的正面和负面影响。为此，我不仅呼吁贵政府，而且也呼吁整个政治阶层高度重视这一点，尽管他们一直急于对外国干涉问题做出判断，并对国家安全过度扩张的风险感到踌躇满志。
如果我们要从“五眼联盟”中吸取教训，我们就应该看看新西兰，新西兰正在悄悄地考虑加强其法律，以处理有害的外国干涉，而不是建立一个对解决这些问题几乎无济于事的登记。
与其模仿陷入与中华人民共和国地缘战略竞争的美国人，不如考虑加拿大与其南部邻国的区别—一条对世界更开放、更注重社会凝聚力、更关心少数族裔权利、更少极度意识形态的道路。我想，二十年后我们回顾2023年时，可以以今天相同的方式回顾2003年，当时加拿大顶住了美国参与入侵伊拉克的压力。这不是要背弃美国人，而是关于追求我们认为对加拿大正确的事情。
排华法案实施一百年后
事实上，我们更好的直觉已经被一种极端的反华情绪所损害，这种情绪已经蔓延到对加拿大人的有毒污名化中，仅仅是因为他们持有不同观点，或者因为他们的祖先、商业关系或专业利益而与中华人民共和国有联系。最近媒体报道了针对中国的匿名和未经证实的“情报”报道，引发了对加拿大华裔政治家、学者和社区领袖的狂热影射——所有这些都是以国家安全的名义进行的。无知、意识形态狂热、恐惧、群体思维和政治怯懦的结合，创造了外国影响力登记最危险的条件，以及为什么我们需要警告它。
具有讽刺意味的是，围绕外国影响力登记的讨论是在《中国移民法》颁布100周年之际进行的。 当时的华人社区活动人士称其为《排华法案》，因为1923年至1947年间几乎完全禁止中国人移民加拿大。其实这也可以称之为《华人登记法》，因为法律要求所有在加拿大的华人在法案颁布后12个月内登记，否则将面临罚款、监禁和/或驱逐出境的威胁。即使在登记后，在加拿大的华人仍然受到执法人员不断骚扰和羞辱，他们会质疑登记内容的真实性。
可以肯定的是，现代登记不会导致所有甚至大多数华人在加拿大的强制登记。但它可能要求所有被认为受到中国（和其他）政府影响的加拿大人进行登记。这可能不像1923年的《中国移民法》那么严重，但它仍然是一种排斥形式，就像一个世纪前《排华法案》一样，在今天是不可接受的。在某些方面，现代登记制度更糟，因为它表明我们没有从加拿大以前的仇外心理和对少数群体的歧视中学到任何东西。相反，这表明加拿大国家有一种坚持错误的能力，可以为选择性歧视其公民提供理由。
最不加拿大的提议
总之，外国影响力透明度登记无法应对外国国家干预的严重行为，例如黑客，骚扰和恐吓加拿大人。它既不会减少外国影响，也无助于区分恶性和非恶性形式的这种影响。另一方面，它将扼杀合法的政治辩论，污名化某些群体，并助长内向。登记操作的成本将远远超过其微薄的好处。现在采用登记制度就是屈服于恐惧和分裂的政治。这将导致一个更小、更讨厌、更自我陶醉的加拿大。
如果登记是不可避免的，它就应当平等地适用于所有国家，并以具体安排为基础，例如个人或组织与外国之间的货币支付，而不是基于假设或假定的安排。
只有游说政府官员和政治家才需要登记，私人活动或一般通信无需登记。它不应以原籍国、族裔、商业和民间社会的隶属关系以及个人观点为基础。由于登记力求使外国影响活动透明，因此在描述被视为恶意的影响力活动类型以及登记如何减少此类不良行为时，政府应完全透明。
我希望你能重新考虑“外国影响力透明度登记”。
你真诚的，
参议员胡元豹阁下
英文原文：
APRIL 18, 2023
Dear Minister:
I am writing to provide my feedback on the proposed foreign influence transparency registry. Given the importance of this issue and my concerns about the impulses behind a registry, I will be making this letter public.
I appreciate that your department has launched a consultation and is seeking feedback on six specific questions. With due respect, they are the wrong questions. Instead, we should be identifying the specific problem that the registry is trying to address and whether the proposed solution creates more harm than good.
What is the Problem?
Your consultation paper makes clear that the problem is “foreign interference”, of which “malign foreign influence” is a subset.
The example of foreign interference provided in the paper is one where harassment and intimidation of Canadian communities instills fear, silences dissent and pressures political opponents. These acts are indeed unacceptable, but harassment and intimidation are already offences under Section 423 of the Criminal Code. If a foreign actor or its proxy engages in harassment and intimidation, that actor should be prosecuted. That such acts may be taking place with impunity suggests the need for stronger law enforcement or stronger laws, not a registry of foreign influence.
The consultation paper tries to make the case for a registry to also deal with “malign foreign influence” but is vague about what constitutes malign influence. The specific example given in the paper sent shivers down my spine. Here it is in full:
An individual, employed by a foreign government, asks a prominent Canadian academic to write an op-ed opposing the Government of Canada’s approach to a particular international issue, and urging Canadians to likewise disagree. The academic writes the op-ed and it is published in a widely circulated national newspaper. The academic is also asked to engage with student groups on campus to advocate a viewpoint that is favorable to the foreign government. The academic does not disclose their relationship with the individual employed by the foreign government. This is an example of malign foreign influence because the influence activities are undertaken covertly. The foreign interests being represented in the article, and in the engagement with student groups, is not transparent.
This example offends so many of the values that Canadians cherish, including internationalism and openness to the world, freedom of association, freedom of expression, and freedom of thought. It also portrays Canadians who have interactions with foreign governments as servile dupes who have no capacity for individual judgement and agency. One could as easily construe the meeting of a prominent academic with the foreign official as an example of Canadian influence on that country. How is it that we have become so insecure as to imagine every encounter with a foreign government only in terms of how the “foreigner” influences us, and not the other way around?
It should be expected that an academic who is working on issues related to a foreign country meet with officials from that country occasionally. It should also come as no surprise that experts on issues far removed from Canada write on those issues with a degree of nuance that is often lost on domestic audiences, but which may be more aligned with the views of a foreign government. That the same academic would share such views with student groups is part of the job of being a teacher, not an act of subversion.
Unless the government deems interactions with certain foreign governments to be illegal, it will be impossible to determine if an opinion piece written by a Canadian following an encounter with a foreign government official is a case of “malign foreign influence”. Under such circumstances, it is likely that the opinion piece will be deemed to be “malign” because of the views expressed in the piece rather than on any meaningful evidence of “arrangements”. This amounts to a definition of “malign” that has nothing to do with foreign interference, but everything to do with one’s opinions. It is as chilling a prospect as any that we would associate with authoritarian and repressive regimes.
The Wrong Solution
Which is the great irony in a proposed foreign influence registry that is ostensibly about countering interference by authoritarian regimes. A common comment I have heard from many Canadians who grew up in such regimes is that the proposed registry resembles what they suffered under -- and came to Canada to escape.
There is another way to define “malign” foreign influence, which the consultation paper hints at. It is to categorize as harmful only those ideas and viewpoints that come from certain countries. The shorthand for these countries is “authoritarian”, “non likeminded”, and “undemocratic”. Under this construct, the registry would target a list of such countries and include essentially all state and non-state entities, on the basis that all entities are potentially subject to the direction and control of the government.
This is a “catch-all” approach that will affect tens of thousands of Canadians who maintain links with designated countries. It will force them to either register or cut off their ties with their native countries. It could include, for example, ties with alumni associations, cultural and sporting groups, business clubs, municipalities, and kinship bodies.
This approach will result in many grey areas where the need to register is subject to the discretion of the Department. In the absence of any evidence of material arrangements with a foreign state, it is inevitable that the test of registration will default to the views of the individual or organization. This again amounts to defining foreign interference as views deemed to be unacceptable to the government of the day. Welcome to Registry of Un Canadian Activities.
Even if many such individuals and organizations are exempted from registration under one government, there is no guarantee that they won’t be required to register under another. In any case, the fundamental problem with this approach is not in the number of entities that end up in the registry; it is in the stigmatization of those for whom the threat of registration is always hanging over them, and the chill in civic discourse and political participation that will descend on whole communities.
Anti-China Sentiment is Driving Anti-Asian Hate
We are already witnessing this chill among Chinese Canadians in particular because of the relentless unsupported allegations by anonymous sources about foreign interference involving Chinese Canadian politicians and ridings where there are large numbers of Chinese Canadians. There is nothing racist about being critical of China or highlighting proven cases of foreign interference in Canada’s domestic affairs. However, the persistent questioning of the loyalties of Chinese Canadians, based on little or no evidence, reeks of racism. It is shameful that political leaders of all stripes have aided and abetted the slurs and innuendo perpetrated by unprincipled and irresponsible journalists.
It does not help that your government has repeatedly made vague comments about the threat of foreign interference without spelling out what those acts are. Canadians, especially racialized minorities, cannot prevent foreign interference if they don’t know what it is. If media accounts are to be believed, meetings with Chinese diplomats, campaigning for candidates that are “friendly” to China and objecting to a foreign agent registry are examples of foreign interference. Are they?
There is widespread agreement about the spike in anti-Asian hate since 2019 and leaders across the political spectrum are united in condemning it. Yet very few have the courage to admit that the single biggest driver of racism towards Chinese and other Asian Canadians is the growing anti-China sentiment in Canada. The proposed registry is driven by that same sentiment, with little regard as to whether it will work and what the negative effects will be for Canadians.
Foreign Influence is Part of What Defines Canada
By opting for a foreign influence registry rather than spelling out what is considered unacceptable foreign interference, the government is conceding that it cannot easily distinguish between benign and malign foreign influence. It would rather run the risk of stigmatizing Canadians caught in the web of a registry than provide examples of malign foreign influence that may not amount to foreign interference. This is as much a problem of the sources of foreign influence as it is one of content. A registry that focuses solely on foreign influence from authoritarian states omits influences from other states and from non-state actors that are surely much larger in size and scope. To suggest that the latter category of foreign influences is small and mostly benign is naïve in the extreme. Put simply, foreign influence in Canada is pervasive, as befits an open economy that values internationalism and prides itself as a country of immigrants and multiculturalism. It is futile and harmful to try and categorize types of foreign influence using crude identifiers such as country of origin and type of government.
The Golden Rule
Do not create a foreign registry for the activities of other countries that you would not want other countries to create for Canada’s activities abroad.
It is routine for Canadian parliamentarians, diplomats, and other officials to speak to overseas stakeholders about issues that are important for Canada. Indeed, our foreign service officers actively seek to influence the decision-making of foreign countries in favour of Canadian interests. They do this by speaking not only with government officials but also with academics, business and civil society leaders, even dissidents – always within the laws of the country they are operating in. We should expect the same of foreign representatives in Canada, and there should be penalties for transgressions by foreign agents on Canadian soil.
But to require registration of state-linked foreign influence in Canada opens the door to reciprocal actions by other countries, which could be highly problematic for Canadian businesses, NGOs, academics, and aid workers abroad. This is in fact the basis on which the EU (rightly) protested a recent proposed foreign agent law in Georgia, but it also points to the hypocrisy of double standards in the kinds of foreign influences that are deemed acceptable and those that are not. How can we object to a foreign government encouraging its diaspora to take part in Canadian elections (without favoritism, coercion, or corruption) when we fund democracy promotion activities around the world?
What About the Five Eyes?
Proponents of a registry are fond of pointing to similar legislation in the US and Australia and asking why Canada has not followed suit.
That is the wrong question. We should instead be asking if the American and Australian experience has resulted in less malign foreign influence and foreign interference, and if any such benefits outweigh the costs of bureaucratic deadweight, social stigma, and a toxic political environment. My assessment is that the costs of a foreign influence/agent registry are much greater than any meagre benefits. Here is a simple test: Has there been less malign foreign influence in the United States since the passing of the Foreign Agent Registration Act of 1938?
A recent example points to the dangers of FARA-type overreach. On the urging of a US Senator and Congressman, The China Project -- an online news portal focusing on contemporary China and US-China relations -- was targeted for listing under the Foreign Agent Registry Act (FARA). That campaign was not based on any evidence of material links with the Chinese government, but it would seem, on the content of The China Project and the background of its principals. It turns out that this organization is not only unaffiliated with the Chinese government, but its postings and podcasts are banned in the People’s Republic of China.
The Australian example is similarly dispiriting. Canberra’s Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme (FITS) is widely seen as a “blacklist”, resulting in reputational damage for registrants and a chilling effect on benign foreign interactions in Australia. By some accounts, foreign interference activities in Australia are at an all-time high even though FITS has been in place for more than four years. While some would argue for a stronger FITS, the more intuitive conclusion is that the registration scheme was the wrong tool to counter foreign interference in the first place.
We are not the United States or Australia
There is yet another reason why Canada should not follow the example of the United States and Australia. It is that we are not the United States or Australia, both of which have a different history and ethos with respect to race relations.
Canada is not without its own dark history of racism, first and foremost towards indigenous peoples, but also with respect to Jews, Irish, Ukrainians, Doukhobors, Italians, Sikhs, Japanese, Tamils, Hindus, Chinese and more. But today, we celebrate the fact that Canada is a country of immigrants and that we embrace the concept of multiculturalism. If multiculturalism is to be anything more than a slogan, it must mean that we do not interpret “foreign” to mean “suspicious”, or worse, “threatening”. It should also mean a determination on the part of our leaders to foster a political culture that seeks to discriminate between positive and negative influences on our society through openness, education, and dialogue, rather than censorship and stigmatization. In making this point, I am appealing not only to your government but to the entire political class, which has been complicit in the rush to judgement on matters of foreign interference, and complacent about the risks of national security overreach.
If we are to draw a lesson from the Five Eyes, we should look to New Zealand, which is quietly looking at strengthening its laws to deal with harmful foreign interference rather than creating a registry that will do little or nothing to address those problems.
Instead of mimicking the Americans, who are locked in geo-strategic rivalry with the People’s Republic of China, we should contemplate the path that has always distinguished Canada from its southern neighbour – one that is more open to the world, more focused on social cohesion, more interested in the rights of minorities, and less given to ideological excess. Twenty years from now, I would like to think that we will be able to look back on 2023 in the same way we remember 2003, when Canada resisted American pressure to participate in the invasion of Iraq. This is not about turning our backs on the Americans; it is about pursuing what we believe to be right for Canada.
One Hundred Years after the Chinese Exclusion Act
As it is, our better instincts have already been compromised by an extreme anti-China sentiment that has spilled over into the toxic stigmatization of Canadians who do not share such views or who are associated with the People’s Republic of China because of their ancestry, business ties, or professional interests. The recent media reporting of anonymous and unsubstantiated “intelligence” reports focusing on China has created a frenzy of innuendo against Chinese Canadian politicians, scholars, and community leaders – all in the name of national security. A combination of ignorance, ideological zeal, fear, groupthink, and political cowardice has created the very conditions under which a foreign influence registry is most dangerous and why we need to warn against it.
The great irony is that discussions around a foreign influence registry are taking place on the 100th anniversary of the enactment of the Chinese Immigration Act. Chinese activists at the time took to calling it the Chinese Exclusion Act because of the near total prohibition of immigration of Chinese people to Canada between 1923 and 1947. But they could just as well have called it the Chinese Registration Act because the law required all Chinese in Canada to register within 12 months of its enactment, on the threat of fines, jail and/or deportation. Even after registering, Chinese in Canada were subjected to the humiliation of constant harassment by enforcement officers who would challenge the authenticity of registration certificates.
To be sure, a modern-day registry would not result in the enforced registration of all, or even most, Chinese in Canada. But it could require the registration of all Canadians who are deemed to be under the influence of the Chinese (and other) governments. That may not be as severe as the Chinese Immigration Act of 1923, but it would still be a form of exclusion that is as unacceptable today as the original Exclusion Act was a century ago. In some ways, a modern-day registry is worse because it would suggest that we did not learn anything from previous episodes of xenophobia and discrimination against minority groups in Canada. On the contrary, it would suggest that the Canadian state has an evergreen capacity to conjure up justifications for the selective discrimination of its citizens.
A Most UnCanadian Proposal
In summary, a foreign influence transparency registry will not address egregious acts of foreign state interference such as hacking, harassment and intimidation of Canadians. It will neither reduce foreign influence nor help to distinguish between malign and non-malign forms of such. On the other hand, it will stifle legitimate political debate, stigmatize certain groups, and foster inwardness. The costs of a registry will far outweigh its meagre benefits. To adopt a registry now is to give in to the politics of fear and division. It will result in a smaller, nastier, and more self-absorbed Canada.
If a registry is unavoidable, it should apply to all countries equally and be based on specific arrangements such as monetary payment between individuals or organizations and a foreign state, rather than on hypothetical or presumed arrangements.
Registration should only be required for lobbying of government officials and politicians, and not for private activities or general communications. It should not be based on country of origin, ethnicity, business and civil society affiliations, and on one’s views. Inasmuch as a registry seeks to make foreign influence activities transparent, it should be accompanied by full government transparency in describing the types of influence activities that are deemed to be malign, and how the registry would reduce such bad acts.
I hope you will reconsider the foreign influence transparency registry.
Yours sincerely,
The Honourable Yuen Pau Woo
中文翻译：半张（若有异议，请以原文为准）
编辑：胡宪
————广告————
欢迎关注加拿大共生国际传媒微信平台
欢迎惠顾广告！
联系电话：胡宪 514-246-3958，胡海 010-15901065716