Canada responded slowly to foreign meddling but elections were not altered, probe finds

OTTAWA, Jan 28 (Reuters) - The Canadian government was slow in responding to efforts by China and India to interfere in the country's elections but their outcome was unaffected by the meddling, an official probe said in a final report released on Tuesday.
The report was the culmination of a probe set up in September 2023 in response to media reports about possible Chinese interference in the 2019 and 2021 elections, both of which were won by the ruling Liberals.
The conclusion confirmed the findings of an interim report released last May that said foreign interference had not changed the results of the elections but eroded public trust in the electoral system.
The Chinese embassy did not have an immediate comment but previously has strongly denied accusations of any meddling. India rejected the allegations in the report and accused Canada of "consistently interfering in India's internal affairs."
The Foreign Interference Commission in a statement said it found that foreign meddling in Canada's elections was not a new phenomenon but that it was on the rise while the methods used were changing.
The probe found that the Liberal government responded to attempted foreign interference by putting in place measures and mechanisms to detect, prevent and counter them, but it "sometimes took too long to act, and coordination was less than optimal."
"The Commission also found that the government has been a poor communicator both about the extent of foreign interference that it detected and the means in place to counter it, and that it must find ways to be more transparent," the Foreign Interference Commission said in a statement.
The Canadian government said in a statement that it will carefully review the report's findings and use them to push back against any foreign interference.
The probe found that China views Canada as a high-priority target and is the most active perpetrator of foreign interference targeting all levels of government. India was identified as the second-most active country engaging in electoral foreign interference in Canada.
"Canada's democratic institutions have held up well and remained robust in the face of attempted foreign interference," said commissioner Marie-Josee Hogue, who led the independent public inquiry.
Last year the inquiry heard evidence showing Canada's domestic spy agency concluded that China had indeed meddled in both votes. Beijing has repeatedly denied this is true.
The report comes about six weeks before the Liberal Party chooses a new leader to replace Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who announced his resignation earlier this month.
Polls show the Conservatives, who accuse Trudeau of not taking interference seriously, are set to win an election that must be held by Oct. 20 this year, but could take place as soon as the spring.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Independent

7 hours ago

• The Independent

Why is Angela Rayner shifting the council tax burden from north to south?

When Angela Rayner took over her department, the first thing she did was to delete 'levelling up' from its name. But she insisted that she was committed to the idea behind the phrase, and now she is about to announce a change in local government funding to prove it. The new funding formula is expected to allocate money from central government according to local needs, including population, poverty and age, with extra weighting for rural and coastal areas with higher transport costs. The effect will be to force local councils in London and the home counties to put up council tax. Many of them are expected to increase tax by the maximum 5 per cent a year for several years, and more than before will ask Rayner for permission to hold a local referendum on an increase greater than 5 per cent. Councils in the north, the Midlands and east London, on the other hand, may be able to cut their council tax, or at least increase it by less. Is this fair? Labour argues that the Conservatives have fiddled the funding formula for 14 years, resulting in artificially low council taxes in places such as Westminster and Wandsworth – former Tory councils that attracted disproportionate media coverage in local elections. In the end, this attempt to cook the books could not hold back the electoral tide, and Labour won control of both councils in 2022. Clobbering those councils is going to make it harder for Labour to retain control, so it could be argued that Rayner is motivated purely by wanting to rebalance the national distribution of resources according to need. The new system will probably be fairer than the current one, if not perfectly fair, but any attempt to adjust local government funding throws up winners and losers – and the losers always make more noise than those who quietly pocket their gains. How quickly will the change happen? Even if the change were totally fair in principle, any sharp fall in central government funding and big increase in council tax is likely to cause hardship. That is why Rayner is expected to adjust her new formula by putting a limit on how much any council's income from central government can fall in a year. David Phillips, of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, says: 'It's been 20 years since we've had an effective system to allocate funding between councils so it is out of whack and the changes are going to be big.' That means any changes will probably be phased in over several years. What could possibly go wrong? If Rayner delivers a funding system for local government that is more closely aligned with local needs, she could deliver more radical policy substance than the Conservative slogan of 'levelling up' ever managed. But Phillips points out a philosophical problem. The more the government tries to redistribute resources from 'leafier places' to deprived areas, the more 'it is making a trade-off to prioritise need over incentives for councils to tackle need and grow their council tax base', he says. If councils receive more funding the higher their indicators of deprivation are, there is a danger of perverse incentives for them to keep those indicators high. Shouldn't council tax be revalued from scratch? Of course it should. It is based on notional property values in 1991 (in England; in Wales the reference date is 2003), so it is hopelessly out of date. But revaluation would produce even more dramatic individual winners and losers than changing funding for whole council areas. Rayner's redistribution is already what Sir Humphrey would describe as 'very brave, deputy prime minister'; a full revaluation would be several times braver – in other words, a guaranteed political disaster. The most that is likely to be politically feasible would be to revalue council tax for more expensive properties, such as the one in 20 UK homes currently on the market for more than £1m. A similar policy, called a mansion tax, was considered by the coalition government – George Osborne and the Liberal Democrats wanted it but David Cameron vetoed the idea, saying the Tory party's donors wouldn't wear it. Given that Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, is likely to be looking for new sources of revenue in the autumn Budget, this may be an option. She did rule out a mansion tax before the election, but I don't think it has been mentioned since. Look out for even greater 'fairness'.

The National

8 hours ago

• The National

Owen Jones: How does opposing Israeli violence make me an extremist?

I'm not referring here to our inability to 'learn the lessons', as the stock phrase goes, of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and indeed Gaza. Even such phraseology suggests these are policy mistakes, or unfortunate messes, rather than grave crimes. No, what we need to learn is that the real dangerous extremists in society are those who incite mass violence with catastrophic human consequences, and stop letting them get away with it. Iraq really should have finished off the warmongers, and yet here we are, having to listen to diatribes in support of bombing Iran where the so-called 'case' for dropping bombs on fellow human beings is even weaker. Indeed, the US administration this time is even more extreme and clearly deceitful. Nobody thinks Iran has nuclear weapons. Benjamin Netanyahu has been publicly claiming that the country will imminently develop them for the last three decades. Donald Trump's own Director of National Intelligence declared that the US intelligence perspective was that 'Iran is not building a nuclear weapon' just three months ago. Smoke rises after an attack on Iran (Image: Majid Asgaripour, via REUTERS) In a rational world, anyone advocating for British involvement in bombing Iran would be dismissed as a dangerous lunatic. Our media outlets would note that Iraq was plunged into a sectarian bloodbath and a playground for al-Qaeda, before that was supplanted by the even more extreme Daesh. We would recall the hideous war crimes committed by the US there, not least in Fallujah. We would be forced to recall how the triumphalism about Afghanistan gave way to a bloodbath, before the Taliban once again regained power in a stronger position than ever. We would be forced to listen to the hubris that accompanied intervention in Libya, which became regime change in total defiance of the original mandate, and led to the country becoming a violent failed state. Our media outlets would note that the Israeli prime minister is a wanted man evading justice, subject to an arrest warrant for war crimes and crimes against humanity issued by the International Criminal Court, an institution our country is a founding member of. They would note the consensus among genocide scholars – including those in Israel itself – that genocide has been committed in Gaza. The heinous crimes in the illegally occupied and colonised West Bank would be noted, as well as the mass slaughter of civilians in Lebanon. That Israel is invading, occupying and attacking Syria as a matter of course would be noted, alongside statements by Israeli ministers openly calling for the establishment of a "Greater Israel" illegally annexing land which does not belong to it. Pressure from the British media – in this context – would go on like this: 'Will the Prime Minister rule out intervening in Iran given the catastrophes in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, the first two causing the needless deaths of hundreds of British service personnel, the wider chaos and destruction aside?' our journalists would demand. 'Will Britain rule out allying with Israel in a war of aggression ruled illegal by experts, given its prime minister is subject to an arrest warrant for war crimes?' they would ask. 'Is the Prime Minister not concerned about Israel's possession of nuclear weapons, given its illegal occupation of land that doesn't belong to it, its openly expansionist commitments, and given it is so credibly accused of grave war crimes and indeed genocide?' But there is no such pressure, at all. Instead, British media outlets simply bang the drum for war, giving credibility to claims Iran will imminently acquire nuclear weapons and that it poses a unique threat. They present Israel as the victim, even though the country launched an unprovoked war of aggression. Those who oppose this insanity are – as before – portrayed as dupes of a foreign tyranny. The real pressure on Starmer is over whether he will join forces with the US to drop bombs on Iran. READ MORE: SNP councillor forces Labour to take action against Israeli arms sales What we've failed to do is to destroy the careers and reputations of genuinely dangerous extremists who have power and influence. If you agitate on behalf of a proscribed organisation such as Hamas, you face being jailed on the grounds you are inciting support for its demonstrable violence. Yet if you use your platform to incite support for what is, in practise, infinitely more lethal violence, you are treated as respectable and indeed mainstream. It is those who oppose Western violence – despite the incontrovertible evidence of bloody disaster – who are instead smeared as dangerous extremists. When are we going to finally have a reckoning which deals with these people? They should become public pariahs, shamed forever for having helped create catastrophes which left millions dead, maimed, displaced, traumatised. READ MORE: JK Rowling called The National 'anti-woman' – here's my response Right now, the British Government is moving to proscribe Palestine Action, essentially making them a terrorist organisation, because they spraypainted planes at an RAF Airbase in protest at British complicity in genocide. This is an example of the world turned on its head: That those who are doing all they can to stop UK involvement with objectively obscene violations of international law are officially treated as the real criminals. Well, history will be a savage judge. We have failed, in the here and now, to crush the extremists responsible for death and destruction on an unimaginable scale. If we want to prevent a future of violent barbarism, that failure has to end.

Daily Record

11 hours ago

• Daily Record

North Ayrshire Tory claims 20mph limit is part of 'climate change madness'

He said the policy was all about pleasing the Scottish Government. Bold efforts by the North Ayrshire Tory Group to put the brakes on the Cabinet's support of the Scottish Government's National Strategy for 20mph in Urban areas and approve the implementation of 20mph speed limits stalled on Thursday. At a fiery meeting of the Audit and Scrutiny Committee, the Conservative Group asked Cabinet to: Suspend the implementation of the 20mph speed limit across all roads, pending the outcome of a full review of cost effectiveness, enforceability, and public consultation and to commission an impact assessment as well as taking feedback from a public consultation. ‌ Supporting the call-in, North Coast cllr Todd Ferguson said he had been contacted by local business and constituents concerned about the plans. ‌ He said: 'As Conservatives we fully support efforts on road safety but believe they must be targeted, evidence-based and proportionate and what is being suggested for the blanket 20mph limit simply does not meet that criteria. 'In North Ayrshire road fatalities remain consistently low although one death is one death too many. 'UK wide we see that when you change signs it limits reduction of speed by only one mile per hour and that changes to 10mph if you include traffic calming but that is not being proposed. 'We had success in Burnhouse and Gateside in getting changes to speed but it did not change behaviour - you had a driver going at 90mph in Burnhouse. We need enforcement but resources are already stretched." Tory Group Leader Cameron Inglis suggested the policy was "smoke and mirrors" and was all about pleasing the Scottish Government by persuading people to stop using their cars as "part of this climate change madness". Tony Gurney, Cabinet member for the Environment and Green Economy said: 'This is more than a transport policy - it's an investment in public safety. ‌ 'This is not a blanket, it has been consulted throughout North Ayrshire. Implementation is recommended only where we see a clear safety benefit. We will implement 20mph zones and that is an opportunity for enforcement by police. 'It is not about flowing traffic, it is about safety. According to the Department of Transport the chances of pedestrians being killed more than halves when speed is reduced to 20mph from 30mph. "A child hit by a car has a one in five chance of dying in 30mph in 20mph drops dramatically to one in 40. ‌ 'The British Medical Journal links 20mph to a 40 per cent reduction in road casualties. "Lives are saved, injuries prevented, NHS costs reduced. Lower speeds give drivers time to react. That extra second can be different between a close call and a tragedy." Independent cllr Donald L Reid said: "I was in office with the Police from 1967 to 1999 and this encompasses what it is all about, speed kills. ‌ "Anything we can do to reduce speed must be a priority. If we can keep speed down to 20mph that is sensible and with a bit of hard work we can probably achieve this. "We saw how drink driving became unacceptable, how wearing seatbelts became the norm and helmets for cyclists and motorcyclists helped save many lives, I don't see how we can't make our streets safer.' A motion to reject the call-in, allowing the policy to stand, defeated an amendment by the Tory Group to accept the call-in and send the matter back to the cabinet for further consideration by six votes to three.