Foreign Influence Transparency Commissioner—Senator Cardozo questions Anton Boegman in Committee of the Whole

By: The Hon. Andrew Cardozo

Share this post:

Senator Cardozo: Welcome, Mr. Boegman. I would like to continue the discussion about the registry as noted in sections 5 and 8. I have always thought the registry is a bit of a naive approach and that the bad actors are probably not going to register. How do you deal with those who do not register and engage in problematic behaviour? I also want to know when you think the registry will be ready.

What about cyberwarfare? Whether it is state actors or non‑state actors who engage in trying to influence elections or referenda through cyberwarfare and cyber-activity, what do you do about it?

Mr. Boegman: Thank you. That is a broad set of questions. Certainly, I realize that those individuals who are doing covert activities may not be inclined to register. I think if effective partnerships can be created and some insight into that can take place, then once they are identified, there can be activity. Whether it is on the administrative penalty side or through the courts, there is the ability for criminal prosecutions under the statute as well that may be applicable in those cases.

I am pleased in terms of the proposed range of administrative monetary penalties. It is very substantive, from a low of $50 up to $1 million. It is far greater than the maximum under U.S. law, under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, or FARA, which is capped at $250,000.

That range of penalties allows for flexibility on one side if there is really inadvertent activity that should be registered but isn’t, but it also provides a significant deterrent. Having that as a potential penalty may deter some actors who employ covert means currently to do these types of things.

When is it going to be ready? That’s not a question that I have a clear answer to. As I said before, I am a citizen. I’ve been brought forward here, but I have not been involved in the work to date to establish the office, to get the technology solution in place to create any of the communication materials. That, of course, would be a key focus for me, should I be named to the role, and would be necessary to ensure that the office is ready to go when the law is brought into force.

In terms of cyberwarfare, I must admit that I’m not an expert in it other than my understanding of hybrid threats to elections specifically. I guess there are some parallels here. I know that it can be used as a tool to influence, a tool to harass and a tool to threaten. Similar to the question that I received in terms of social media companies, if it is being used as a channel through which influence activity is taking place that meets the requirements under the legislation, then it would, of course, be registerable and would be an entity I would require to register.

Share this post: