Canada, China, and the Question We’re Not Supposed to Ask.

 Researched and written by ChatGPT

When Canadian leaders talk about “partnership” with China, we’re told it’s pragmatic. Necessary. Inevitable. Just business.

But let’s pause and ask the obvious question that somehow became impolite:

Do China’s values resemble Canada’s in any meaningful way?

No. They don’t. And pretending otherwise is either naïve or dishonest.

Canada—at least on paper—claims to value individual liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of movement, and the rule of law. China operates under a one-party system where dissent is monitored, speech is censored, and compliance is enforced through surveillance, social credit scoring, and state power.

That’s not a difference of culture. That’s a difference of worldview.

Is China an Authoritarian Regime?

Yes. That’s not rhetoric. It’s a political classification.

China is governed by the Chinese Communist Party. There are no competitive national elections. Media is state-controlled. Internet access is filtered. Protest is permitted only when it aligns with party interests. Citizens can lose travel privileges, jobs, or access to services for saying the “wrong” thing online.

If a Western country operated this way, we wouldn’t hesitate to call it authoritarian.

So why do we suddenly struggle for words when it’s China?

What Would Canada Look Like If We Adopted That Model?

This is where the conversation gets uncomfortable—and necessary.

A Canada shaped by authoritarian norms wouldn’t announce itself with tanks in the streets. It would arrive quietly, bureaucratically, and “for your safety.”

You’d see:

• Increased surveillance framed as efficiency or security

• Speech restrictions justified as harm reduction

• Social penalties for “incorrect” opinions

• Law enforcement aligned more with political priorities than public accountability

• Foreign influence normalized through trade, investment, and “cooperation”

You wouldn’t lose freedom overnight. You’d lose it piece by piece—until one day you realize you’re self-censoring without being asked.

The Chinese Police Stations Question

Here’s the part many people still refuse to grapple with.

Reports have confirmed the existence of undeclared Chinese “police service stations” operating in multiple countries—including Canada—used to monitor, pressure, or intimidate Chinese nationals and dissidents abroad.

Toronto has been named.

Whether these offices are described as “community services” or something more benign depends on who’s doing the explaining. But the core issue remains: a foreign government operating enforcement-adjacent activities on Canadian soil.

Now ask yourself something simple.

If Russia had unofficial police stations in Toronto, would Canadians shrug?

Of course not.

We’d be outraged. Headlines would scream. Panels would convene. Sanctions would be discussed. Fear would be stoked nightly on the news.

But China? We’re told not to overreact.

Selective Fear Is Still Blindness

Canadians are encouraged to fear Russia. To fear Putin. To fear external authoritarian threats.

Yet an authoritarian state with real, documented influence operations inside Western democracies is treated as a complicated “partner.”

That’s not sophistication. That’s selective perception.

Fear is being managed, not informed.

This Isn’t About Race or Culture

Let’s be clear: criticism of the Chinese government is not criticism of Chinese people.

In fact, many of the strongest warnings about CCP overreach come from Chinese dissidents, exiles, and activists who know exactly how these systems work—because they lived under them.

Silencing this conversation by shouting “racism” is not moral. It’s lazy. And it protects power, not people.

The Question That Matters

The real issue isn’t whether Canada should trade with China. Trade happens. Diplomacy happens.

The issue is this:

At what point does cooperation become accommodation?

And at what point does accommodation start reshaping who we are?

If Canadians can’t even ask these questions without being shamed, dismissed, or labeled, then something is already off.

Because a free society doesn’t fear questions.

It fears silence.