Canada is finally inching toward a foreign agent registry, but the slow pace raises an uncomfortable question: why did it take so long, and why does it still feel unfinished?
According to proposed regulations published on Jan. 3 in the Canada Gazette, the federal government estimates that more than 2,400 individuals and businesses operating in Canada are working on behalf of foreign governments to influence domestic politics and public administration. Once the registry is operational, about 2,422 of these actors 872 individuals and 1,550 businesses will be required to register.
On paper, this sounds like a significant step toward transparency. In reality, it highlights how deeply foreign influence may already be embedded in Canadian civic life and how late Ottawa is in responding.
What’s striking is that roughly 93 percent of those expected to register are Canadian citizens, institutions, or residents. That means foreign states are not merely influencing Canada from abroad; they are allegedly doing so largely through people and organizations based here at home. The estimate, borrowed from Australia’s experience with a similar registry introduced in 2018, should give Canadians pause. If even a fraction of these actors are engaged in covert political influence, the implications for democratic trust are serious.
Yet despite Parliament passing Bill C-70 in June 2024 legislation that guaranteed the creation of a public foreign agent registry the system is still not operational. The government initially promised the registry would be running by the end of last year. Instead, Canadians are now watching another consultation period unfold, while key positions remain unfilled.
Most notably, there is still no Foreign Influence Transparency Commissioner. Prime Minister Mark Carney has yet to announce a candidate, despite assurances from Public Safety Canada months ago that a name had already been identified. Minister Gary Anandasangaree told a parliamentary committee in November that the appointment would happen in “short order.” That reassurance now feels hollow.
Without a commissioner, there is no oversight. Without oversight, there is no registry. And without a registry, the transparency promised by the Foreign Influence Transparency and Accountability Act (FITAA) remains theoretical.
The penalties outlined in the proposed regulations ranging from $50 to $1 million for non-compliance sound tough. But enforcement mechanisms are meaningless if the system itself is not yet built. The government has acknowledged that it still needs to establish the commissioner’s office, hire staff, develop secure IT infrastructure, and finalize regulations. These are not minor details; they are the backbone of the entire framework.
Opposition Conservatives have seized on these delays, accusing both the former Trudeau government and the current Carney administration of dragging their feet while foreign interference threats continue to grow. Conservative MP Michael Chong’s criticism resonates because it reflects a broader public frustration: the problem is well-documented, the risks are clear, and yet the response remains sluggish.
This is not a hypothetical threat. The Foreign Interference Commission’s final report, released last January, explicitly named China as the most active perpetrator of foreign interference targeting Canada’s democratic institutions. Ottawa itself has repeatedly warned that foreign governments may secretly hire proxies to advance political objectives while hiding those relationships from public view. That is precisely the gap the registry is meant to close.
Transparency does not criminalize legitimate diplomacy or advocacy. Instead, it allows Canadians to see who is speaking, lobbying, or organizing on behalf of foreign states and to judge those activities accordingly. Other democracies, including Australia, have already moved in this direction. Canada is playing catch-up.
The foreign agent registry is not about paranoia; it’s about accountability. Every month of delay risks further erosion of public confidence in political institutions at a time when trust is already fragile. If Ottawa truly believes foreign interference is a serious threat to democracy, then “short order” needs to mean something more than another promise.
Canadians deserve more than announcements and draft regulations. They deserve a functioning system now.
