In early August, the Canadian Minister of Public Safety announced a new piece of legislation that marks a fundamental shift in the country’s national security architecture: the Foreign Influence Transparency and Accountability Act (FITAA). Overseen by an independent commissioner, the act formally establishes a public registry of foreign influencing activities and those involved. This creation of this new system reframes how foreign actors influence Canadian economics, politics, and society. Historically, Canada has lacked a publicly accessible registry to track covert foreign maneuvers. By implementing FITAA, the federal government hopes to institutionalise transparency and accountability where a structural gap once existed.

However, this push towards institutionalising transparency in foreign lobbying is not specific to Canada. In an increasingly uncertain world, democratic openness has become a significant national security vulnerability. Just as European states are realising that heavy economic dependence on foreign actors yields unnerving political leverage, democracies around the globe are recognising that unregulated political access is a liability.

The FITAA is highly reminiscent of a law established by Australia’s federal government in 2018. This law, titled the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act, has similar intentions to the FITAA, establishing a public register of registrable activities made by foreign principals. In the context of Australia, these activities must have some level of influence on a person, entity, structure, or process that alters the federal political and governmental structure. While Australia’s scheme does not immediately criminalise or heavily fine these entities for non-compliance as done by the Canadian legislation, it does establish an understanding of how foreign actors should act. It implies that if any activity is left unregistered, then an investigation will commence.

Yet, building federal accountability is a global uphill battle. Nations such as Denmark, Finland, and Singapore are well-known for having clear legislation on public accountability standards. Despite this, global attempts at establishing transparency levels that satisfy the public constantly run into deep institutional issues. These habits are only intensified during high-stakes election cycles. For example, in France, recent legislative debates over foreign interference have shown how transparency laws can easily become a political weapon during campaigns.