Ottawa’s plan to impose fines of up to $1 million on individuals and organizations that fail to comply with a proposed foreign influence registry sends a clear message: Canada is finally serious about confronting foreign interference. Yet the long delays, unanswered questions, and broad scope of the registry raise an equally important issue whether the government itself is prepared to match its demands for transparency with accountability and clarity.
The foreign influence registry, enabled by Bill C-70 passed in June 2024, is rooted in a legitimate concern. In recent years, Canadians have been confronted with intelligence leaks and media reports alleging foreign meddling particularly by China in electoral and political processes. These revelations have shaken public trust and exposed gaps in Canada’s national security framework. Compared with allies such as the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom, Canada has indeed been slow to act.
On paper, the registry looks like a sensible corrective. It would require individuals and entities including businesses, non-profits, and educational institutions to disclose arrangements with foreign entities aimed at influencing political or governmental activities in Canada. The goal is not to ban such activity outright, but to shine light on it. In a democracy, sunlight matters.
But intent alone does not guarantee good policy.
One immediate concern is timing. Public Safety Canada initially said the registry would be operational by June 2024. That deadline came and went. In August, Canadians were told a commissioner would be appointed by September. That too failed to materialize. Now, the target has shifted again, with the foreign affairs minister saying implementation will happen by the end of 2025. For a government that insists foreign interference is an urgent threat to sovereignty and democracy, these delays undermine its own sense of urgency.
There is also the question of scope. The proposed regulations cast a wide net, capturing individuals, civil society groups, diaspora organizations, and academic institutions. While foreign states do exploit community groups and informal networks, overly broad requirements risk chilling legitimate advocacy, research collaboration, and community engagement especially among diaspora communities that already feel under scrutiny.
The penalties amplify this concern. Fines ranging from $50 to $1 million, coupled with potential criminal consequences in serious cases, are among the harshest tools available to regulators. While the regulations allow the commissioner to consider intent, compliance history, and ability to pay, the sheer scale of possible penalties may intimidate smaller organizations with limited legal resources. Transparency should not come at the cost of silencing lawful participation in public life.
Supporters of the registry argue that these measures are necessary to deter bad actors who deliberately conceal foreign ties. That is true. Covert influence corrodes democratic institutions and public trust. Canadians have a right to know when political advocacy or policy influence is being carried out for the undisclosed benefit of a foreign power. In that sense, the registry aligns with international best practices and strengthens Canada’s credibility among its allies.
Still, credibility cuts both ways.
If Ottawa expects compliance within 14 days of entering an agreement with a foreign entity, it must ensure that the rules are clear, accessible, and fairly administered. That means appointing a commissioner without further delay, issuing detailed guidance, and ensuring that enforcement is proportionate rather than punitive for its own sake. A registry that is vague, inconsistently applied, or politically weaponized would do more harm than good.
The consultation process outlined by Public Safety Canada engaging provinces, civil society, diaspora groups, and security experts is encouraging. But consultation must translate into meaningful adjustments, not just a box-checking exercise. The public comment period, open until Feb. 2, should be treated as an opportunity to refine the regulations, particularly around definitions of “influence,” exemptions for benign activities, and protections against overreach.
Canada does need a foreign influence registry. The status quo is no longer defensible in an era of sophisticated transnational interference. But the success of this initiative will depend less on the size of the fines and more on the trust it earns. A democracy is not protected by secrecy or fear—it is protected by clear rules, fair enforcement, and a government that practices the transparency it demands from others.
