Chris Tenove, University of British Columbia and Heidi J. S. Tworek, University of British Columbia
April 11, 2025
Fears of foreign interference loom over the Canadian election. The federal inquiry on foreign interference revealed that entities aligned with India and China interfered in recent elections, albeit without major impact on the results, and concluded that disinformation campaigns pose the greatest threat to Canada’s long-term democratic health.
Now, with a Canada-bashing American president adding to those foreign interference risks, Canada’s election integrity seems to be in an unprecedented state of fragility.
However, foreign interference has a longstanding history in Canadian elections. Understanding what is and is not new about current efforts may help to turn down the heat and focus more on how Canadians can make their own decisions this election.
Covert techniques
For starters, what is foreign interference?
The commission, following established practice, defined it as an action whereby “states pursue their global interests using covert, corrupt, illegal or coercive techniques.” That means public comments on our election by foreign politicians is not interference, as Canadian government officials have made clear.
While we largely agree with the commission’s definition, we argue that the interfering entity isn’t necessarily a state. Foreign corporations, crime syndicates and terrorist networks can also interfere in our elections.
Elon Musk is a tricky case. He is a Canadian citizen, but his current role with the United States government may mean that he can be considered a “foreign entity” according to Canada’s election law, as legal scholar Eve Gaumond has pointed out.
U.S. interference isn’t new
History reveals a long menu of options for foreign interference, ranging from bribery to espionage and polling assistance.
In the 1872 election campaign, Sir Hugh Allan, a Montréal shipping and railroad magnate, successfully used more than $350,000 of mostly U.S. funds to pressure John A. Macdonald and other Conservative party members to award Allan and his allies the contract to build the Canadian Pacific Railway. This was bribery to advance corporate aims.
After these machinations became public in 1873, Macdonald eventually resigned over what became known as the Pacific Scandal, and Allan lost the Canadian Pacific Railway contract. Today his actions would be a violation of campaign finance laws, which prohibit foreign funding of electioneering. But until the late 19th century, such donations weren’t uncommon.
Foreign policy has shaped Canadian elections before, even if the last Canadian election that focused almost primarily on tariffs with the U.S. was in 1911. But concerns about relations with other countries are different from foreign interference.
To date, the most significant foreign interference came in Canada’s 1962 and 1963 elections. Again, Americans were behind it. The John F. Kennedy administration was frustrated by positions taken by Prime Minister John Diefenbaker.
The Conservative government continued to trade with Cuba despite American sanctions, had made a deal to sell grain to the People’s Republic of China, and — most importantly — had not agreed to a U.S. proposal to station air defence missiles with nuclear warheads on Canadian soil.
Rather than bribery, the U.S. provided Lester B. Pearson’s Liberal Party with assistance from pollster Lou Harris. Harris was a key figure both in Kennedy’s 1960 election win and in the nascent use of computer-assisted analysis of opinion polls to target specific demographic groups.
The Kennedy administration went further in 1963 and issued a press release in the midst of the election, calling Diefenbaker a liar and disputing his positions on air defence. Neither of these actions was illegal at the time, though the secret provision of in-kind assistance to the 1962 Liberal campaign would now run afoul of the prohibition on foreign support for electioneering.
Soviet, American interference
The Soviets too were interested in Canadian politics, with some Canadians allegedly recruited as spies, according to Igor Gouzenko, a cipher clerk based at the Soviet embassy in Ottawa who defected to Canada in 1945.
The revelations even led to the arrest of one member of Parliament, Fred Rose.
In fact, American and Russian interference in general elections around the world was common in the 20th century. Political scientist Dov Levin has estimated that from 1946 to 2000, the U.S. and Soviet Union (Russia after 1991) intervened in 11.3 per cent of all global national elections.
New digital techniques
All these techniques can be pursued today, but there are at least three new forms of interference.
First, foreign interference can include threats made against party leaders or other candidates. As in the past, these can come through clandestine networks or hired thugs. But today, an insult or false accusation from Trump, Musk or others with huge, hostile followings can expose politicians and others to a blizzard of online threats and abuse.
Second, foreign interference can occur by providing money for electioneering. Rather than a single bundled sum offered to John A. Macdonald, funds are more likely to come through online donations, possibly including crypto-currency transfers that are difficult to monitor.
For instance, in Romania’s 2024 election, the far-right, Russia-supporting candidate Calin Georgescu was accused of receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal campaign support. In late March, a crypto-currency businessman was arrested and accused of using TikTok’s “gifts” feature to provide US$879,000 to induce 265 people to vote for Georgescu.
Such acts would be illegal in Canada. More ambiguous is whether social media platforms use their algorithms to amplify some views and diminish others.
There is no doubt that X, Facebook and TikTok platforms have the capability to do this. While government officials said such actions would be investigated, it is less clear whether they could be detected or what the government would do in response.
Finally, foreign interference can occur by trying to influence Canadians’ voting choices by threatening illegal or coercive actions or promoting misinformation.
Trump has already violated trade agreements with Canada and threatened future illegal activities, even going as far as to threaten annexation. Any comments that link these threats to voting outcomes — for example, if Trump said something like “if Canadians choose Carney, they will see tariffs like they have never seen before” — would constitute interference.
What can be done?
There are systems in place to detect foreign interference.
Canadian intelligence agencies and law enforcement are monitoring for foreign interference, and a panel of five senior bureaucrats makes non-partisan decisions about whether to alert the public.
Global Affairs Canada’s Rapid Response Mechanism is monitoring the online information environment for foreign interference. Elections Canada is also monitoring for violations of election law.
Members of the public can help. Anyone can share cases of manipulated images and other misleading information related to the election with the Digital Threats Tipline, created by the Canadian Digital Media Research Network. (Our Centre for the Study of Democratic Institutions at the University of British Columbia is a member of this McGill University-based network.)
These monitoring efforts will help us keep an eye on social media platforms. The companies have agreed to act on interference in the election, but experts are skeptical of their commitment.
If platforms are pipelines of election interference, they should be more tightly regulated. For instance, the European Union’s Digital Services Act has enabled investigations and potential accountability measures in response to interference in Romania’s election.
The most important thing Canadians can do is vote in this election based on their own well-informed priorities, worries and aspirations.
While remaining alert to foreign interference, Canadians can perhaps take some comfort in the resilience of our democratic institutions in the face of a long history of attempts to undermine elections.
Chris Tenove, Assistant director, Centre for the Study of Democratic Institutions, University of British Columbia and Heidi J. S. Tworek, Associate Professor of History and Public Policy, University of British Columbia
Subscribe to our newsletter.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.