Foreign interference report is just the start of a conversation about Canadian democracy
It would be a mistake to forget about Justice Hogue's findings
The sensational foreign-interference saga that gripped Parliament Hill off and on for two years came to an unofficial end last month with the release of Justice Marie-Josée Hogue's final report. And between her relatively anticlimactic conclusion there are no "traitors" in Parliament and the incredible tumult that Donald Trump has since provoked, the commission's work could soon fade from memory.
That would obviously be a mistake — and not only because foreign interference remains a serious threat, but also because Hogue's report opens the door to a wider and necessary discussion about continuing to strengthen Canadian democracy.
Among Hogue's 51 recommendations was a little-noticed call to consider a change to Canada's political financing laws — specifically, whether direct public funding should be provided to political parties.
As Hogue notes, the federal government used to provide parties with a per-vote subsidy: When corporate and union donations were banned in 2004, the federal government introduced an annual stipend that provided political parties — as long as they received at least two per cent of the national popular vote — with $1.75 for each vote they received in the preceding federal election.
The policy was ended, somewhat controversially, in 2015.
Hogue suggests that in the absence of that subsidy, political parties have a greater need to seek out contributions from private donors. And that need could create an opening for foreign interference.
That line of reasoning might be somewhat convoluted. But it could still be worth reassessing Canada's political financing laws.
At least as compared to the Wild West of American politics, Canada's federal fundraising and spending laws are exceedingly reasonable — individual donations are limited to $1,725 and both parties and candidates are subject to spending caps. But even if $1,725 seems like a relatively modest sum compared to the millions of dollars that individuals donate to political candidates in the United States, it's fair to say that wealthier Canadians are much more able to comfortably afford a maximum donation.
Beyond the possible opening for foreign interference, it's also fair to ask whether a complete reliance on private donations has other downsides. A report on political polarization published by the Public Policy Forum in 2023 suggested that whipping up anger and distrust among party members was a lucrative approach.
Simply reinstating the per-vote subsidy — or something like it — would not eliminate the incentive to raise money through private donations, at least not without tighter spending limits. But maybe direct public financing could level the playing field and reduce the need to sow anger and distrust.
The 'existential threat' of disinformation
Beyond Hogue's reassurance that there were no "traitors" in Parliament, her most pointed comments concerned a problem that was somewhat overshadowed by more sensational claims about foreign interference — the spread of disinformation and misinformation.
"While allegations of interference involving elected officials have dominated public and media discourse, the reality is that misinformation and disinformation pose an even greater threat to democracy," she wrote.
"Disinformation is difficult to detect and, above all, to counter since the technological means available evolve at breakneck speed. It is noxious, and it is powerful, it poses a major risk to Canadian democracy. If we do not find ways of addressing it, misinformation and disinformation have the ability to distort our discourse, change our views and shape our society. In my view it is no exaggeration to say that at this juncture, information manipulation (whether foreign or not) poses the single biggest risk to our democracy. It is an existential threat."
Hogue is hardly the first or only authority to raise the alarm about the spread of misinformation and disinformation online — the Canadian Medical Association released its own survey on health misinformation a week earlier. But linking the problem to foreign interference might put an even finer point on those concerns.
"Canadians are united in their concern about foreign interference," says Aengus Bridgman, director of the Media Ecosystem Observatory, a joint project of McGill University and the University of Toronto, "in a different way than they are united in their concern about domestic disinformation."
As Bridgman notes, what constitutes "misinformation" or "disinformation" in a domestic sense can be contested. But probably everyone can agree that foreign sources should not be speaking falsehoods to manipulate Canadian politics.
Hogue offers a number of recommendations toward building "civic resilience" and supporting a "healthy information environment," including public education, new regulations around political communication and taking steps to implement the "Global Declaration on Information Integrity Online," a statement of principles that Canada co-signed in 2023.
But her most controversial recommendation might fall under the heading of "supporting professional media."
After touching on the suite of policies that the Liberal government has introduced since 2015 to support Canadian journalism, Hogue writes that "the government should pursue discussions with media organizations and the public around modernizing media funding and economic models to support professional media … while preserving media independence and neutrality."
The degree to which professional media can solve the problem of misinformation and disinformation, at least single-handedly, probably shouldn't be overstated. But Hogue writes that "without strong professional media, Canadians have fewer reliable resources to assess what they are seeing online."
Support for the Liberal government's policies is hardly unanimous — even among Canadian journalists. But if Hogue's recommendation is controversial it's particularly because Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has attacked the government's funding for Canadian media (he has also promised to eliminate public funding for the CBC).
There is a reasonable debate to be had about whether or how governments should support journalism. But more than that there is a larger discussion to be had about the unending challenge of building a stronger, healthier democracy.
Foreign interference has been an inherently intriguing topic — involving shadowy plots and classified information. But it is also ultimately only a subplot to a larger conversation about preserving and strengthening Canadian democracy.
And as events south of the border are now demonstrating, that conversation is not to be taken for granted.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
