Concerns about the role of foreign intervention in the federal election are increasing.
“It’s definitely a worrying issue. The National Security Intelligence Commission has reported, as well as the national inquiry from Marie-Josée Hogue, who made it clear that foreign powers are trying to influence the outcome of our elections,” said Akaash Maharaj, a senior fellow in Global Affairs and Public Policy at Munk.
Not long ago, a public investigation into foreign intervention has lasted most of Canada for nearly two years, examining how foreign actors such as China and Russia try to intervene in the Canadian election.
Maharaj noted that while Canadian MPs may be the target of foreign intervention, the diaspora communities are more vulnerable.
“There is a lot of evidence that states hostile to Canada have been interfering with my country’s diaspora communities. They will send agents to our country; they will try to convince them to support or oppose certain political measures. If they support their position, they will intimidate them if they think foreign countries are not in their interest.”
“My heart is in this position for people because they face a terrible choice. Do I stick to my beliefs and do so, will I put my family at risk?”
Foreign actors can target Canadian diaspora communities, especially those who are running for a specific reason. One example could be how China intimidates Uyghur-Canadians who sympathize with the cause, Maharaj said.
“When those Canadians try to increase the plight of those Vilgoula and ask political actors to take public policy steps, take foreign policy measures, and exert diplomatic pressure on the Chinese government, the Chinese government itself has been trying to keep these people silent and intimidate.”
Maharaj said the Canadian government should do more to solve the problem.
“We should realize for ourselves that the people most vulnerable to foreign intervention and foreign intimidation are the most unlikely people in our society.”
In January, Justice Marie-Josée Hogue, who led the foreign intervention investigation, finally found Foreign intervention has no impact on the results In the last two federal elections. But Maharaj said the risks remain.
“I don’t think we should be overly shocked. Especially because Justice Hogg made it clear that these efforts are somewhat semi-dangerous, marginal and ineffective. But that doesn’t mean that these forces cannot increase their efforts and may have an impact on the future.”
According to Hogue’s report, misinformation and false information pose a huge threat to Canadian democracy. This could distort discourse, change perspectives and society, she wrote.
“It shows the pursuit of these powers. Often, they are not really trying to install one candidate on another, although it does happen. What they really want to do is undermine the public’s confidence in democracy itself.”
“We should have real attention because Canadians are not saying politicians are being lied, but lies that we are being unable to work for democracy. We have an obligation in a democratic country to fight these efforts.”
Poilievre’s refusal to obtain security permissions may be “problematic”
Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre defended his decision Tuesday to avoid obtaining a security permit. Hogg’s report encourages federal leaders to obtain security permits as soon as possible. He remains the only major Federalist leader without a security permit.
“What I wouldn’t do is promise the confidential oath that liberals want to impose on me. They don’t want me to be able to speak about these things. So they took me into a dark room and they said, ‘We’ll be able to give you some Intel’s bread crumbs and then we’ll tell you, you can’t say these things anymore,” you’ll say. ”
Briefings on national security measures, including foreign intervention, are needed.
Liberal leader Mark Carney targeted Poilievre on Tuesday.
I found that day after day, every day, month after month, year after year, opposition leaders refused to accept his security permit. In normal processes, that was unacceptable at the time.
Maharaj said Poilievre’s lack of security checks could lead to problems.
At the very least, if Mr. Poilievre did not wish to be bound by the confidentiality provisions of this process, he wanted to assure Canadians that he had nothing to hide, for example, that he could have obtained his own security permit but did not continue to accept the reports. By obtaining a security permit, he will prove that his safety is not what he is afraid of saying is that he is afraid of him, he is afraid of being rejected.
