Did China Try to Remove Vancouver’s Mayor?
Former Vancouver mayor Kennedy Stewart says Beijing targeted his 2022 campaign
Former Vancouver mayor Kennedy Stewart believes the Chinese government tried to influence the 2022 municipal election against him. His warning goes beyond his own defeat: Canada’s nomination contests may offer foreign governments an even easier route into the political system.
When Kennedy Stewart was preparing to seek re-election as mayor of Vancouver in 2022, two CSIS officials arrived at his office for an unexpected meeting.
Stewart recalled that one of the officials specialized in China. They explained how foreign interference could operate during elections, questioned Stewart and his chief of staff about what they were observing, and reviewed publicly reported activity connected to the campaign.
“They came to brief me in my office, to basically say there’s foreign interference in your election,” Stewart told me during our conversation on Nuanced.
At the time, Stewart says he did not know what to do with the information. The intelligence officials left, he looked at his chief of staff, and the campaign continued. There was no obvious mechanism available to a municipal candidate who had been warned that a foreign government might be taking an interest in the race.
Only after the election, Stewart said, did the picture become clearer.
What Stewart Says Happened
According to Stewart, journalists from The Globe and Mail later met with him and discussed information reportedly originating from intercepted communications involving the Chinese consulate in Vancouver. Stewart said he was told those communications pointed to an effort to remove him from office and support his opponent, Ken Sim.
Stewart believes his public support for Taiwan was one reason he was viewed unfavourably by Beijing-linked actors. He also recalled messaging aimed at Chinese-speaking voters that portrayed him negatively and warned against supporting him.
Asked directly whether the Chinese government tried to remove him as mayor, Stewart answered yes—but added an important qualification.
“I think, if you piece it together, it was at least somewhat coordinated by the consulate out here,” he said. “But in the end, Vancouver voters decided that election.”
That distinction matters. Stewart is not arguing that foreign interference erased the agency of Vancouver voters or single-handedly determined the outcome. He received roughly the same number of votes as he had in the previous election, but a changed field of candidates altered how the vote divided.
He also faced several domestic political challenges. Vancouver’s police union endorsed Sim and campaigned against Stewart after years of tension over policing and systemic racism. Stewart carried the political burden of governing through COVID-19, including business closures, emergency measures and public anger. His administration had accumulated opponents long before election day.
His position is that suspected Chinese government activity formed one part of a much larger political environment—but it was a part Canada should not dismiss.
The Weakest Link
Stewart’s broader warning is that foreign influence does not need to change the result of a general election to reshape Canadian politics. It may be easier to intervene much earlier, when parties select their candidates.
Nomination contests are often low-turnout events governed largely by political parties themselves. A relatively small number of newly registered members can determine who becomes a candidate. In a safe riding, winning the nomination may be nearly equivalent to winning a seat in Parliament.
Stewart described a hypothetical process in which an outside actor signs up members, helps a candidate win and then returns to collect a favour.
“You win, and then they come back and say, ‘Well, you owe us,’” he explained. That favour might involve hiring a particular person into the candidate’s political office, where they could gain access to internal communications and privileged information.
For Stewart, this is not a minor procedural concern.
“It is the weakest part of our political system—the nomination process—and it’s the most vulnerable part,” he said.
Political parties present nominations as exercises in grassroots democracy, but the rules are inconsistent and the oversight is limited. Parties control membership lists, eligibility decisions and the internal review of disputes. Candidates can be disqualified, approved or parachuted into ridings with little transparency.
Stewart has personal experience with the darker side of nominations. When he won the federal NDP nomination in Burnaby—Douglas in 2011, members of the local riding executive resigned because they had supported another candidate. He later learned that the riding president had been involved in unrelated criminal fraud.
That experience reinforced his belief that political parties should not be trusted to regulate every aspect of their own candidate-selection processes.
Democracy Before Election Day
Most public discussion about foreign interference focuses on campaign donations, misinformation, covert advertising or efforts to shift votes during an election. Those threats are real, but they may overlook where political power is first assembled.
A foreign government does not need to persuade millions of Canadians. It may only need to influence a few hundred members in a contested nomination, assist a preferred candidate, or develop a relationship with someone who later enters a minister’s office.
Once elected, that person could gain access to caucus conversations, confidential correspondence, policy development and relationships across government. The most significant benefit might not be one particular vote—it could be years of access.
Stewart believes this vulnerability is worsened by political institutions that respond slowly and place enormous personal risk on individuals who speak publicly. He has previously faced a lengthy defamation lawsuit and said he is cautious about making allegations that could expose him to another expensive legal battle.
That is why he argues elected MPs and MLAs must use the protections available to them. Parliamentary privilege allows legislators to raise serious allegations inside a legislature without facing the same defamation risks as someone speaking outside it.
Canada’s debate over foreign interference cannot begin and end with asking whether Beijing changed the result of a particular election. The more fundamental question is whether our political institutions are strong enough to identify influence before it becomes embedded.
Stewart’s account deserves careful scrutiny, corroboration and a serious official response. His central warning is difficult to ignore: by the time Canadians are handed a ballot, some of the most consequential political decisions may already have been made.