.png)
Beware of Foreign Interference in Canada’s Federal Elections,
MP Candidate Warns
By Jonathan Fon | Toronto | April 10, 2025
On Monday, April 7, veteran Member of Parliament and current Conservative Party candidate, Michael Chong issued a strong public statement calling for vigilance against foreign hostile forces seeking to interfere in Canada’s federal elections. He pointed specifically to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in Beijing, accusing it of waging an information warfare campaign aimed at creating confusion and influencing electoral outcomes.
Evidence of such interference is already surfacing — particularly within the Chinese diaspora, where misinformation spreads rapidly via private messaging platforms. One screenshot, shared among folks, contains a troubling message:
Nancy: “So what? Joe Tay still is a criminal in Hong Kong.”
Nancy: “Can’t handle the truth? Afraid of the truth?”
Nancy: “Not condemning a criminal but attacking someone who speaks the truth.”
But who exactly is “Joe Tay”? In this context, “Joe Tay” refers to Ching-Kei Cheng — a Canadian citizen and former actor in Hong Kong, now running as the Conservative candidate for Don Valley North. Cheng had previously sought nomination in the Markham–Unionville riding.
On December 24, 2024, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region issued an international warrant for Cheng’s arrest, alongside five other pro-democracy activists residing in Canada or the United States. Each was targeted by a HKD $1 million bounty.
That same day, Global Affairs Canada released a statement condemning the warrant as “completely unacceptable.” Two days later, the U.S. State Department echoed this sentiment, denouncing the warrant as an act of transnational repression under Hong Kong’s national security law. The U.S. reaffirmed its support for individuals targeted solely for exercising their right to free speech.
The truth is this: Cheng has not been charged or convicted in any Canadian or U.S. court. Under Hong Kong’s legal system, he is only a suspect. Yet the message in the screenshot refers to him as a criminal — a gross mischaracterization. The use of the word “still” further suggests a false sense of certainty and permanence. In fact, both the Canadian and U.S. governments recognize Cheng as a legitimate pro-democracy figure — not a criminal.
The implications are troubling. Is the message a case of ignorance, or a calculated attempt to distort facts and influence public opinion during an election?
Then, who is the person “attacked for speaking the truth”?
It appears to be Paul Chiang, a retired police officer, former Member of Parliament, and ex-Liberal candidate in the same riding. Chiang and Cheng were once competitors. In January 2025, during a press event, Chiang commented publicly on the Hong Kong bounty against Cheng, suggesting he could be “handed over” to the Chinese consulate in exchange for the reward.
While Chiang may have believed he was speaking candidly, the remarks sparked public outcry. Media widely reported the statement, and the Liberal campaign distanced itself from Chiang, revoking his candidacy. Critics accused him of inciting criminal behaviour — including kidnapping and unlawful confinement — by openly suggesting the use of force against a political opponent.
As a longtime law enforcement officer, Chiang’s words were particularly shocking. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) have since launched an investigation. Sources suggest two potential avenues: one exploring criminal incitement, and another invoking Bill C-70, a recently passed law targeting foreign interference and transnational repression.
If charges are laid under Bill C-70, Chiang’s case could become the first legal test of the legislation. Canada’s intelligence and security agencies — including CSIS and the RCMP — are reportedly coordinating efforts through a new Transnational Repression Task Force to investigate such threats.
Chiang’s political future hangs in the balance. Beyond the backlash from over 40 democracy advocacy groups, he may soon face legal consequences — and become a case study in how Canada responds to foreign interference on its own soil.
As Canada moves toward its next federal election, these events serve as a sharp reminder: foreign disinformation campaigns are not a distant threat. They are already here — manipulating conversations, spreading confusion, and attempting to shape the future of Canadian democracy.
