Scrutinizing Canada’s Foreign Interference Policy

In response to growing concerns about foreign interference, the Canadian government has proposed new legislation, The Foreign Influence Transparency and Accountability Act, to counter the threat. Before it is passed, the draft must undergo parliamentary review and will be scrutinized against similar legislation among Canada’s allies in the Five Eyes security alliance (Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States — New Zealand has developed its own approach).

In this policy brief, Wesley Wark looks at how these countries have implemented foreign influence transparency registries and what Canada can learn from them to create its own model.

Before the annual spring meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank officially began, Jay Shambaugh, the US Treasury’s under secretary for international affairs, gave a talk laying out “the US perspective on the state of play in development finance and what needs to be done to improve the system for restructuring sovereign debt.”

James A. Haley reflects on some of Shambaugh’s key points — both the elements that left him with “a sense of déjà vu” and the highlighting of newer developments, including significant changes in the “player roster,” and challenges to resolve, such as the “difficult issues…with respect to standstill clauses.”

“That Canada has a productivity problem is not news. Economists and commentators have typically responded with a call for greater investment, as if that could solve the problem. But this is almost like saying the cure to a disease is to cure the disease.” The deeper question, Robert Fay says, is “Why don’t Canadian firms invest more than they do? And why, once they have made investments, do they tend to perform more poorly than many of their international peers?”

Fay outlines a few reasons: lack of competition in network industries, taxation that disincentivizes investment and dampens entrepreneurship, and the reality that the drivers of wealth creation (but not the frameworks) have changed. “Refocusing requires a comprehensive rethink of policy and regulation, to arm and incentivize companies and workers to take advantage of the current and next wave of technological change.”

“We all know the algorithmic allure of social media.…And most of us are also increasingly aware, too, that while billions of people around the world happily choose to remain plugged into social media on a daily basis…platforms have become tools for the dissemination of false information and hate…[and] contributed to harmful polarization across the globe.”

In this opinion, Andrew Heffernan says we have the choice “to act swiftly, decisively, collaboratively, and in a well-thought-out manner, to better govern how our personal data is mined, exploited and weaponized. In doing so, we would help ensure that our societies can continue to be truly democratic. So why don’t we? It is time we called on our democratically elected representatives, with one voice, to work together to stop a handful of billionaires from governing information tools that are now intrinsic to our lives.”