Canada’s foreign influence transparency commissioner has acknowledged that a registration involving a Chinese state broadcaster was removed from a newly established public registry because it contained information that should not have been disclosed, raising fresh questions about privacy protections, technical failures, and government spending.
During an Oct. 6 hearing of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, Commissioner Anton Boegman faced questions from Conservative MP Michael Cooper about the missing registration, a separate privacy breach involving a prominent China expert, and an information technology system estimated to cost CAD $29.41 million (USD $20.67 million).
According to an Oct. 7 report by The Bureau, Boegman’s explanation for the missing registration differed from an earlier account provided by his office, which had attributed its removal to technical problems rather than a privacy breach.
China-linked registration removed without explanation
The controversy centers on a registration submitted by The Canada Files Media, an Ontario-based company that identified CGTN Français, the French-language service of China’s state-owned China Global Television Network, as its foreign principal.
The registration disappeared from public view on Sept. 15, shortly after Canada’s new foreign influence registry began publishing disclosures.
For the best of our weekly content！
You are now signed up for our newsletter
Check your email to complete sign up
An earlier investigation reported by Todayville, based on The Bureau’s findings, revealed that the company had disclosed receiving approximately CAD $823 from CGTN Français for two sponsored productions. The arrangement, which ran from Aug. 5 to Aug. 13, was intended to encourage Canadians to support China’s handling of its domestic political affairs.
During the Oct. 6 hearing, Cooper asked Boegman whether his office had experienced any privacy breaches beyond a previously reported incident involving former Canadian diplomat Charles Burton.
Boegman confirmed that another breach had occurred, explaining that his office had published a registration containing information that should not have appeared in the public database.
When Cooper asked whether the registration involved a foreign principal from the People’s Republic of China, Boegman responded, “That’s correct, yes.”
However, The Bureau reported that the commissioner’s office had previously attributed the missing registration to difficulties transferring information from submission forms to the public database.
Cooper challenged the apparent discrepancy, pointing out that the earlier explanation made no mention of improperly disclosed information.
Boegman rejected the suggestion that the explanations contradicted each other, saying technical limitations had caused incorrect information to appear in the registry.
He said the registration would be restored “when it’s possible,” but did not identify the information that had been improperly published.
The problems emerged during the registry’s first months of operation.
According to Public Safety Canada, the Foreign Influence Transparency and Accountability Act came into force on Aug. 4, requiring individuals and organizations involved in certain arrangements with foreign principals to disclose activities intended to influence Canadian political or governmental processes.
Although government estimates anticipated thousands of registrations, only two entries were publicly available as of Oct. 6.
Boegman told lawmakers that approximately 30 submissions had been received by the Oct. 3 deadline for pre-existing arrangements. According to The Canadian Press, he said those submissions would undergo validation before appearing publicly, adding that registration numbers should increase as more individuals and organizations become aware of their legal obligations.
Privacy breach raises concerns for Canadian China expert
The hearing also examined a separate privacy breach involving Charles Burton, a former Canadian diplomat and longtime China analyst who has publicly criticized the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
In a Sept. 15 investigation, The Bureau revealed that the commissioner’s office had mistakenly sent an email concerning Burton’s registration submission to another individual.
The email exposed Burton’s name, an administrative submission number, and the office’s determination that his registration was ineligible.
The disclosure raised particular security concerns because Burton said he had previously been warned by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) that Chinese authorities had monitored his unencrypted communications since 2012.
Burton said he had informed the registry’s leadership about those concerns before the system began operating. CSIS has neither confirmed nor denied his account.
During the hearing, Cooper pressed Boegman about the breach and questioned whether additional emails containing personal information had been mistakenly disclosed.
Boegman told the committee that no other emails had been sent to third parties in error.
Cooper also raised questions about technical problems that allegedly prevented Burton from discussing the breach with officials.
According to The Bureau’s Oct. 7 report, a scheduled telephone call with Burton did not take place because a major system outage prevented staff from accessing the necessary technology.
Boegman acknowledged that this appeared to be the case.
Cooper further alleged that Burton and several Chinese pro-democracy activists had been unable to attend an online information session about the registry during the week of Sept. 7.
Participants reportedly received a message stating, “Sorry, but you do not have access to this event.”
Boegman disputed Cooper’s characterization that the participants had been blocked.
“I would not say that they were blocked,” he said.
“That’s called being blocked,” Cooper replied.
Boegman acknowledged that the registry had experienced several technical difficulties but emphasized that any communications technology carries the risk of malfunction.
The concerns are particularly significant given the registry’s national security mandate. Individuals reporting foreign influence activities may possess sensitive information or face potential retaliation from foreign governments.
The Canadian government has acknowledged the need for stronger safeguards. According to The Canadian Press, Boegman told lawmakers that his office was developing an encrypted communications channel for individuals who might be targeted by hostile foreign states.
$29.41 million system compared to ArriveCAN scandal
The technical problems prompted Cooper to question the cost of establishing Canada’s foreign influence registry.
Citing a Public Safety Canada estimate of CAD $29.41 million for the information technology system, Cooper asked whether taxpayers were receiving adequate value for their money.
“Is this what 29.41 million of tax dollars gets Canadians a completely botched IT system?” he asked, according to The Bureau.
Boegman explained that the registry was operating using a minimum viable product, or MVP, an initial version designed to provide essential functionality while further development continues.
He said the approach had allowed the government to launch the registry on Aug. 4, using existing systems supplemented by manual administrative processes.
Cooper responded by drawing a comparison with GC Strategies, the Ottawa-based IT consulting firm associated with the controversial ArriveCAN application developed during the COVID-19 pandemic.
“You can’t even make a phone call. You can’t even set up a conference call,” Cooper said. “Have you thought about calling in GC Strategies?”
In a February 2024 audit, Auditor General Karen Hogan estimated that ArriveCAN had cost approximately CAD $59.5 million, while acknowledging that poor financial records made it impossible to determine the precise amount.
The audit found serious deficiencies in procurement practices, financial oversight, and contract management. It also identified an estimated CAD $19.1 million in costs attributable to GC Strategies, although the company disputed that amount.
Hogan’s report found that federal officials had failed to maintain adequate documentation explaining why GC Strategies received the initial contract without a competitive bidding process.
The findings raised broader questions about accountability and the government’s management of expensive technology projects.
For Canada’s foreign influence registry, the controversy comes at a sensitive time. Established to improve transparency and help expose undisclosed foreign influence operations, the system has instead faced questions about privacy breaches, restricted access, and its ability to publish accurate information.
Original article
Comments