Alleged Chinese Police Stations in Canada: How Did They Get Here? And Why Aren’t They Shut Down Yet?

News Analysis

Of all the countries where China has purportedly set up unofficial police stations, only Ireland and the Netherlands have so far ordered the stations to be closed. Authorities in other countries, including in Canada, have at most said they are “investigating” the issue.

This came after a Spanish NGO, Safeguard Defenders, published a report in September alerting countries like Canada to these stations on their soil. The station in Dublin, Ireland, displayed a public sign, “Fuzhou Police Overseas Service Station.” Other stations, such as the reported three in Toronto, are more subtle.

But why did it take an NGO to raise the alarm about these stations in countries with sophisticated intelligence and security agencies? And why is there not yet any report on whether they’ve been ordered closed in Canada?

“I think in this case, intelligence operations have simply not been aware of it. Nor do I think politicians have been aware of it. Which is also why I think it’s become a bit of a story that people are shocked and surprised, because this has been going on now for a number of years, right under our eyes and ears,” Peter Dahlin, founder and director of Safeguard Defenders, told The Epoch Times.

Dahlin says one of the reasons that it could have gone unnoticed is that the stations aren’t directly run by the central government in Beijing, but rather by local authorities such as the one in Fuzhou, the capital city of China’s Fujian Province, and are therefore more scattered.

“Unless you pay attention to bulletins and notices coming out of very local police operations in a province somewhere, it’s going to be very hard to find this kind of information,” he said.

“And on top of that, the reason I think it’s gone on for so long without it being really noticed is that each jurisdiction in China operates these operations slightly differently. So station to station, city to city, country to country, it looks very different in how these service centres are actually run.”

Phil Gurski, a 32-year veteran of Canada’s Communications Security Establishment and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), says that what China is doing in this case would constitute foreign interference and would fall under the authority of CSIS to investigate.

“Whether or not they were aware of it is a great question, and I’m going to assume yes,” Gurski, who now runs Borealis Threat and Risk Consulting, said in an interview.

He said such information was likely passed on to government authorities, and the bigger question is, “why didn’t they do anything about it?”

“If an NGO in Spain could figure it out, I’m pretty sure Canada figured it out. So the question is, why was nothing done to actually stop this practice on Canadian soil?” he said.

The Epoch Times contacted CSIS for comment but was referred to the RCMP.

The RCMP issued a statement on Oct. 27 titled “Reports of criminal activity in relation to foreign ‘police’ stations in Canada,” saying it is investigating the issue.

The Epoch Times asked the RCMP whether its investigation started before or after Safeguard Defenders’ report was published, but it declined to answer, saying that as the issue is under investigation, it can’t comment further.

Weldon Epp, a Global Affairs Canada (GAC) official, told MPs in a House of Commons committee meeting on Oct. 4 that the government has now started investigating claims in media reports related to this issue.

Epp was asked by Conservative MP Michael Chong if the government has made representations to Beijing about the allegations that it has established police stations in Canada and reports of the stations being used to “intimidate Canadians and even coerce them in going back to China.”

“I can tell you that we are working closely with partners to understand whether these media reports are based in fact,” Epp said.

The Epoch Times contacted GAC to confirm whether it only began its investigation after the NGO’s report was released, but was told to contact the RCMP, and that GAC has “nothing further to add.”

‘110 Overseas Stations’

Safeguard Defenders has identified more than 50 such outposts, named “110 Overseas Stations,” in different countries. The “110” in the name is a reference to the emergency police number in China.

The Chinese Embassy in Canada has acknowledged that local authorities have set up online service platforms to help Chinese citizens abroad with services such as driver’s licence renewal, and that the service centres are needed to perform eyesight and hearing examinations. The embassy says the stations are staffed by volunteers, who are “not Chinese police officers” and are “not involved in any criminal investigation or relevant activity,” CBC reports.

Dahlin says these operatives are not registered to perform such duties and don’t have the required permissions from the governments of the countries they operate in.

But more concerning is that some of these stations have been involved in much more “frightening” activities, he says.

“The ‘110 Overseas Stations,’ both in their online and physical overseas form, also serve a more sinister goal as they contribute to ‘resolutely cracking down on all kinds of illegal and criminal activities involving overseas Chinese,'” says Safeguard Defenders’ report, citing one incident, provided by the Chinese authorities, showing that the police stations have a role in the so-called “persuade to return” effort.

These activities fall under a broader repatriation effort by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), including Operation Fox Hunt and Operation Sky Net. These initiatives, which, unlike the “110 Overseas Stations,” are controlled centrally in Beijing, have resulted in 10,000 “fugitives” being brought back to China from around the world since 2014, Safeguard Defenders said in a previous report.

The NGO says this account of the stations being involved in forcible repatriation efforts was corroborated recently by a Chinese official, who told a Spanish newspaper: “The bilateral treaties are very cumbersome and Europe is reluctant to extradite to China. I don’t see what is wrong with pressuring criminals to face justice.”

Andy Brooke, a retired RCMP officer who has been involved in counter-terrorism operations, says there are more issues at stake as the CCP has revamped its suppressive tactics, including the recent implementation of the national security law in Hong Kong, which allows application of criminal penalties by the CCP for anyone in the world.

“If you have service stations in these countries, then you have your ears to the ground in those countries,” Brooke said in an interview.

Why Are They Still Here?

According to Safeguard Defenders, so far their report has resulted in responses from 12 different governments.

British Security Minister Tom Tugendhat told lawmakers on Nov. 1 that the government is assessing the reports as well as other actions by Chinese officials that are “incompatible with diplomatic status.” The Irish government confirmed in late October that it has told the Chinese Embassy to close the station in Dublin. The Dutch government demanded the closure of the stations on Nov. 1.

When it comes to a response by the Canadian government, beyond the RCMP’s Oct. 27 statement saying that it is investigating the issue, not much has been said.

As far as police action is concerned, Brooke says the simplest form would be if someone comes forward who has been the subject of intimidation or assault. In this case, it would be a straightforward case of criminal complaint for police to pursue and take action.

But it gets more complicated without a formal complaint case, he says, as it would require law enforcement to spend more time to look for evidence and develop a case.

He acknowledged that if law enforcement had access to more legal tools, such as a foreign agent registration act, then it would have more latitude to act.

Countries such as Australia and the United States have already enacted such legislation, and the UK is in the process of enacting its own version of the law. It requires agents acting on behalf of foreign powers to register their names, and failure to do so would result in criminal prosecution. A similar bill was introduced by Sen. Leo Housakos in Canada’s Parliament in February. Housakos repeated his request for its passage after the news emerged about China’s overseas police stations.

Safeguard Defenders is also recommending this legislation as one way of dealing with these unofficial police stations. Other solutions, it says, include setting up hotlines to let victims of CCP harassment make reports anonymously, without feeling intimidated, and regularly making information public on the CCP’s activities on these fronts and on the evolution of its tactics.

But even the United States, which has in recent years enacted some of the most aggressive legislation aimed at curbing the CCP’s influence, has apparently fallen victim to the overseas stations, with Safeguard Defenders reporting one such office in New York City.

“In general, our legal frameworks aren’t really designed to handle this kind of modern-era transnational repression,” Dahlin says.

Government Action

For Gurski, the issue is one where action is needed at the political level, since it involves a foreign government.

“They need to sit down, through our embassy in Beijing, and send a very clear message that ‘this is unacceptable. You’re not allowed to come to Canada to engage in this. And if you continue to do so, there’ll be implications for bilateral relations,'” he says.

But, he says, successive governments in Canada haven’t taken the “threat from China” seriously due to economic and trade considerations. He says that over his decades working in government intelligence agencies, he often saw China specialists being frustrated that the government is ignoring their findings.

“They prized economic benefits over the possibility that China is engaging in activity against our national security,” he said.

Julian Spencer-Churchill, an associate professor of international relations at Concordia University, concurs that political considerations are playing a factor in this issue, noting especially that the current Liberal government doesn’t have an interest in “taking a position” on it.

“Why haven’t they been detected? It’s because it’s really easy not to be detected, especially if the government doesn’t want to find it,” he said.

Andrew Chen, Isaac Teo, and Lily Zhou contributed to this report.