Foreign interference bill could have 'chilling effect' on freedom of expression, but also praised for economic security benefits

Civil society groups say they are concerned about a possible chilling effect on freedom of association and privacy after the foreign interference bill was passed by Parliament last week, although the Business Council of Canada argues the new legislation could level up Canada’s game when it comes to economic security. The sweeping legislation, intended to detect and counter foreign interference threats, will create a foreign agent registry, introduce new criminal offences, and will widen powers for Canadian intelligence gathering. “It has … a number of overly broad or vague provisions that allow it to be used in ways that could be harmful. Whether it will be, we don't know,” said James Turk, director of the Centre for Free Expression at Toronto Metropolitan University. “We're not looking for trouble, but we want to make sure there's the ability to hold the government accountable in case they do use this legislation inappropriately.” Bill C-70, the Countering Foreign Interference Act, received royal assent on June 20, after a brisk pace through the House and Senate since its introduction by Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, N.B.) on May 6. A major component of the legislation is the creation of a Foreign Influence Transparency Registry, requiring anyone acting on behalf of a foreign power seeking to influence government processes to register. The legislation also expands warrant powers for the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS), and amends the Criminal Code, such as by broadening the scope of the sabotage offence by including certain acts done in relation to essential infrastructures. Turk described C-70 as an omnibus bill that was rammed through the legislative process too quickly for serious consideration of its measures. To help keep the federal government accountable, the Centre for Free Expression, along with the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, say they plan to launch a web portal where individuals can report if they believe their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are violated because of the legislation. All reports will be kept confidential, and the portal is aimed for a September launch, according to Turk. James Turk, director of the Centre for Free Expression, says 'We're not looking for trouble, but we want to make sure there's the ability to hold the government accountable in case they do use this legislation inappropriately.' Photograph courtesy of James Turk “We're looking particularly for cases that expose potentially unconstitutional actions that have been taken, and where, in our judgment, those are occurring … we potentially will contact them to talk with them about what's happened to see if they'd like to be connected to journalists to share their experiences, or to lawyers to get legal advice as to what their options are,” said Turk. Representatives of the Centre for Free Expression, along with other organizations including the Canadian Association of University Teachers and the Privacy & Access Council of Canada, argued in a press release on June 19 that the legislation could potentially result in law enforcement shutting down legitimate protests if they are perceived to be benefitting a foreign state, or could force universities to provide information to the Foreign Influence Registry if they are working in association with a foreign university that happens to be state-owned. “A faculty member doing research in any field with a colleague at a Chinese University, all of which are state-owned, theoretically, could be required to register,” said Turk. “Canadian scholars work with their counterparts wherever they are in the world. So, if you're a physicist and you're looking at some nuance of string theory and the other leading physicist in the world who does that is in Russia or in China—and given that universities in both countries are state universities—does that bring you under the auspices of the act?” In contrast, the Business Council of Canada welcomed the passage of Bill C-70, arguing in a June 19 press release that the Countering Foreign Interference Act will better protect Canadians by providing the federal government with essential tools to counter “increasingly pervasive and sophisticated threats to our country.” Trevor Neiman, the council’s vice-president of policy and legal council, appeared before the House Public Safety Committee on June 5 and said that foreign interference also targets the Canadian economy, such as through supply chains and critical infrastructure networks. He told The Hill Times that a new information-sharing regime included in the Countering Foreign Interference Act is a main component in improving Canada’s capability for protecting economic resiliency. Bill C-70 amended the powers of CSIS to allow the agency to share intelligence with entities outside of the federal government, such as with the business community. Neiman argued that Canada needs to establish a “formalized threat exchange” similar to the Domestic Security Alliance Council (DSAC) in the United States. Trevor Neiman, vice-president of policy and legal council for the Business Council of Canada, says the Domestic Security Alliance Council in the U.S. 'allows the federal government to protect that country's national economic security, but it also allows the private sector to better protect its employees, customers, and communities.' Photograph courtesy of Trevor Neiman “Essentially what we're talking about here is a two-way exchange of threat intelligence, and … when it comes to DSAC, allows the federal government to protect that country's national economic security, but it also allows the private sector to better protect its employees, customers, and communities,” said Neiman. To help protect against possible rights and freedoms violations, Neiman argued that section 34(3) of the legislation includes “rigorous standards and safeguards.” “First and foremost, disclosures, they can only be made for the express purpose of building stakeholder resiliency and awareness against threats to the security of Canada. In other words, the scope of the information that can be shared is quite limited,” he said. “As a general principle, CSIS is prohibited from disclosing any personal information of any Canadian citizen, any personal information of permanent residents, or any personal information of any individual situated in Canada.” Concerns about potential problems involving wording in the legislation were discussed during a third reading of the bill on June 19 by the Senate’s National Security, Defence, and Veterans Affairs Committee. ISG Senator Yuen Pau Woo (British Columbia) proposed an amendment to remove the phrase “in association with” from the bill, which he argued was vague and open-ended. Woo argued that the phrase “in association with” is taken from a section of the Criminal Code and cited a Supreme Court case in which it was stated the purpose of that term in the code is to supress organized crime by targeting offences that are connected to the activities of criminal organizations. According to Woo, the Foreign Influence Transparency and Accountability Act is not a registry of organized crime, but is instead a registry intended to encourage those lobbying on behalf of foreign principals to do so transparently. The amendment proposed by Woo was defeated in a vote of 54-17. On June 20, Woo argued in a press release that keeping the phrase “in association with” in the legislation could result in a chilling effect on civic engagement, particularly among diaspora communities in Canada. ISG Senator Yuen Pau Woo says 'until and unless the yet-to-be-appointed Commissioner of the Foreign Influence Transparency Registry clarifies how they will interpret the criteria for registration ... the best course of action is prudence.' The Hill Times photograph by Andrew Meade “It pains me to raise the alarm to all Canadians to be extremely careful about their involvement in political and governmental process if they have any risk of being found to be ‘in association with’ a foreign entity. Until and unless the yet-to-be-appointed Commissioner of the Foreign Influence Transparency Registry clarifies how they will interpret the criteria for registration, including the term ‘in association with,’ the best course of action is prudence. How ironic that a law to counter foreign interference in our democracy could end up suppressing that very democracy,” said Woo in the press release Duff Conacher, the co-founder of Democracy Watch, told The Hill Times that the legislation contains loopholes that still allow for secret, foreign interference in nomination contests, political party leadership contests, and elections and policymaking processes, reiterating concerns he raised to the House while Bill C-70 was still under consideration. Among Conacher’s concerns is that only communications with “public office holders” are covered under the foreign influence registry, which therefore wouldn’t apply to election candidates. Duff Conacher, the co-founder of Democracy Watch, says, 'If the arrangement is just to influence a contestant and all you're doing is communicating with the contestant, those communications are not covered.' Photograph courtesy of Duff Conacher “MPs, as soon as the writ is dropped, you're no longer an MP. You’re now an election candidate,” said Conacher. “If the arrangement is just to influence a contestant and all you're doing is communicating with the contestant, those communications are not covered; only communications with public office holders are covered.” Sec. 31 of the legislation specifies that the Foreign Influence Transparency and Accountability Act must be reviewed during the first year after a general election. The next federal election will occur on or prior to Oct. 20, 2025, which Conacher said means a review of the act, which provides an opportunity to push for amendments, will occur in 2026 at the latest. Bill C-70 brings the most significant update to the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service Act since the act was first brought into force in 1984, according to a Public Safety Canada press release on June 21. “Our intelligence and law enforcement personnel work around the clock to protect Canadians. With Bill C-70 becoming law, they will now be better equipped to detect, disrupt, and counter foreign interference and take action against those seeking to harm our way of life. Thank you to all parliamentarians who worked with us to ensure the swift passage of this legislation,” said LeBlanc in the press release. jcnockaert@hilltimes.com

Read the latest Election 2025 stories

Foreign interference bill could have ‘chilling effect’ on freedom of expression, but also praised for economic security benefits

To keep reading, subscribe and become a political insider.

Only $7.76 a week for an annual subscription.

Liberals could pick up five to six seats in Alberta, but NDP’s bleed in votes could also help Conservatives, say strategists

Conservatives target labour vote as NDP support wanes, but union leader says there’s ‘no substance’ behind catchy slogans

Canada needs a national strategy for security, trade, and economy to contend with Trump, say political science experts

AFN election priority report urges parties to make ‘clear, firm’ pledges to First Nations

Arctic security takes spotlight as Canadian sovereignty remains key campaign issue

Tariffs ‘still devastating’ despite ‘reciprocal’ reprieve, says Senator on Canada-U.S. council

Tariffs ‘still devastating’ despite ‘reciprocal’ reprieve, says Senator on Canada-U.S. council

The federal public servants running in election 2025

Major third parties wind down ads in writ period, but organic ‘authenticity’ better than polished spots, say strategists

Who’s who on Mark Carney’s 2025 Liberal campaign team

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Day 13: Poilievre eyes Trois-Rivières, Carney targets Scarborough

Does size really matter? Rethinking public service reform

Canada urgently needs a new growth strategy in response to Trump’s economic war

What Canada needs now is more robust, visionary diplomacy, not more military spending

Health security must be recognized as a pillar of national security

Day 12: Tariff drama pivots to the auto sector—and retaliation

Day 12: Tariff drama pivots to the auto sector—and retaliation

News

Get free news updates

Opinion

Submit a guest opinion article

resources

Follow us

Advertise

subscribe

get help

Get free news updates

Submit a guest opinion article

Foreign interference bill could have ‘chilling effect’ on freedom of expression, but also praised for economic security benefits

To keep reading, subscribe and become a political insider.

Only $7.76 a week for an annual subscription.

Become a Political Insider

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8