For more than a year, Canada has been considering the creation of a foreign agent registry to fight interference in the country’s democratic processes.
The Liberal government and even some firm supporters of the idea acknowledge such a registry would be just one of many tools to prevent hostile actors from interfering in Canadian affairs.
The rationale for establishing a registry stem from the fact states may involve in interference to advance their political goals, and can employ individuals to act on their behalf without those people disclosing who they’re helping.
Some believe requiring such individuals to formally register with the government they are trying to influence, with the threat of fines or even prison time for failing to comply can make these dealings more noticeable to the public.
Allegations of Chinese interference in the last two federal elections suggestions fuelled by anonymous leaks to the media have better calls for a registry.
A registry might not stop all meddlers, but it would convey a signal which is something that Canada is taking strong interest in, said Cheuk Kwan, co-chair of the Toronto Association for Democracy in China.
Vincent Rigby, a former national security to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, also sees value in a registry, but, like Kwan, he cautions it would not be a panacea.
The United States and Australia, two of Canada’s closest partners, already have such registries and Britain is expected to set one up this year.
Wesley Wark, a senior fellow with the Centre for International Governance Innovation, said Canada faces fears from aggressive foreign states out to scare diaspora communities and interfere in elections and other democratic processes.
But Wark, who took part in a federal consultation on creation of a registry, studies the proposed measure a little more than security theatre.
To stop malign foreign influence, you cannot use a foreign influence registry. That’s not how it’s going to work. A registry could help to educate the public, align Canada with its allies and have a deterrent effect, Wark allows.
A registry could become a baggy bureaucratic monster whose complexity leaves individuals wondering whether they need to sign on, takes money from the pockets of security agencies investigating illicit foreign influence and runs afoul of Charter of Rights guarantees of freedom of speech, says Wark.
British Columbia Sen. Yuen Pau Woo told the federal consultation last year that a registry would not address egregious acts of foreign state interference.
On the other hand, it will stifle legitimate political debate, stigmatize certain groups, and foster inwardness, he said in a written submission, which was released under the Access to Information Act.
The cost of a registry will far outweigh its meagre benefits. To approve a registry now is to give in to the politics of fear and division. It will result in a nastier, smaller and more self-absorbed Canada.
Kwan disagrees, saying that a registry would help quell racism.
Creating a list of definite foreign agents would high a cloud of suspicion which hangs over all people of the Chinese community in Canada, he said.
Overall, respondents to the public consultation favored establishing what the government calls a foreign influence transparency registry, but they stressed a need for clarity on how it would work.
A federal summary of the consultation said applicants wanted a registry to properly define who has to sign on and to spell out what falls within the scope of covered activities.
They also advised the government to continue its outreach program with communities at risk of foreign interference, put more resources toward enforcing counter-foreign interference laws and make additional legislative amendments in the national security sphere.
In that manner, in November the government announced a fresh public consultation on possible changes to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, which rules Canada’s spy service, Canada Evidence Act, the Criminal Code and the Security of Information Act.
Wark sees the latest federal review as a sign the Liberal government, is understanding that it should prioritize to strengthen the national security legal framework over creation of an influence registry.
Ottawa also needs to figure out what a registry would achieve what existing legislation governing lobbying activities and federal elections cannot already do, he said.
As much as it looked simple when they first dived into it, I think they gradually realize that it’s not.
