‘Narrow’ foreign agent rules may create gaps in countering influence operations: lawyer

Canada’s foreign agent registry was created in response to concerns raised over alleged covert influence in national politics by countries like China and India.

Canada’s “more narrow” rules around foreign states’ covert influence could allow bad actors to continue exploiting regulatory gaps and interfere in domestic politics, warns a U.S. lawyer specializing in political and election laws.

Ottawa released regulations for the Foreign Interference Transparency and Accountability Act (FITAA) in early January, part of the government’s response to allegations that the People’s Republic of China, India and other threat actors were meddling in Canada’s domestic affairs.

The legislation would create a public-facing registry of Canadian organizations and individuals who are acting on behalf of a foreign entity, including both states and companies. Appearing on the list does not imply wrongdoing — simply that a business or an individual is working on a foreign entity’s behalf.

Canada lagged behind allies in creating such a registry. The U.S. has had a similar law on the books since the Second World War, while Australia introduced one in 2018 and the U.K. in 2025. Ottawa has yet to publicly announce who will serve as the country’s first FITAA commissioner, despite creating the position in 2024.

Alexandra Langton, a Washington-based lawyer with Covington’s Election and Political Law Practice Group, said the Canadian law could miss some covert ways in which foreign states try to shape political opinion.

For instance, the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) can broadly address any activity that aims to alter policy or public opinion in the country, Langton said. The Canadian law “appears to be a little more narrow” in that it focuses exclusively on political or government processes, rather than broader public opinion.

“I think it has a lot to do with the origins of FARA, as this 1938 statute that was developed in response to Nazi propaganda in the United States, where there were these seemingly U.S. persons on corners handing out propaganda, promoting the Nazi government that seemed to be speaking with U.S. voices,” Langton said.

“In the United States, we’re really concerned about addressing that and shining a spotlight on who the real speaker was there. That type of activity may not be covered by the more narrow set of influence activities addressed in the Canadian statute.”