The committee studied the nomination of Anton Boegman for the position of Foreign Influence Transparency Commissioner. Mr. Boegman appeared as the sole witness.
Anton Boegman said his career as a naval officer and, for the past seven years, as British Columbia’s Chief Electoral Officer, prepared him for the role. He stressed that the registry is one tool in a multi-faceted, whole-of-society approach to counter foreign interference, and that his priorities would be to operationalize the office, engage with targeted communities, build public awareness, establish partnerships with agencies like CSIS and the RCMP, and begin enforcement promptly. He noted that the registry is country-agnostic and that he would rely on partnerships to detect covert activity, as his office would be small.
In response to questions from Michael Cooper, Boegman confirmed he had no involvement in drafting the registry’s regulations, had not been consulted on them, and did not know whether permanent staff had been hired. He agreed that independence is critical but said the lack of input was a function of the legislation, which prevents a commissioner from being in place until the law is in effect. He said he had not yet done a detailed plan on whether the $25 million allocated over 10 years is sufficient, but noted he could seek additional funding through Treasury Board.
Arielle Kayabaga asked about building community trust. Boegman said trust would be an outcome of successful implementation, and that he would focus on outreach to affected communities and academia, and on providing clear guidance and multilingual communications. He said the registry aligns Canada with allies like the U.K., Australia and the U.S., and that he would balance enforcement with charter protections, drawing on his experience with election advertising laws.
Christine Normandin asked about independence and investigative limits. Boegman said he would need partnerships with financial, police and intelligence agencies to gather information, and that the registry is agnostic, though countries like India, China, Iran and Russia are flagged. He said the registry’s goal is transparency, not persecution.
Tako Van Popta questioned Boegman about the 2024 B.C. election in Surrey—Guildford, where 22 mail-in ballots from a seniors’ home were at issue. Boegman said the election was administered in accordance with legislation, that the lawsuit was dropped, and that he could not speak for Elections BC. He said the lesson was that training and follow-up can always be improved.
Tim Louis asked about the working group Boegman established in B.C. Boegman said it brought together CSIS, the RCMP and provincial partners to clarify roles and plan responses, and that information-sharing pathways have since improved. He said he would seek to learn from international partners’ registries.
Normandin asked about the registry’s design. Boegman said it must be easy to use, multilingual, and that responsibility for it would be his alone if appointed. He said communication campaigns in multiple languages, as he did in B.C., would be key.
Grant Jackson asked about readiness. Boegman said he would be ready on day one and believed he was being set up for success, with mechanisms to seek more funding. On engaging Canadians abroad, he said he would use online presence, community groups and the diplomatic service, and would rely on other agencies for detecting financial interactions.
Will Greaves asked about disinformation. Boegman said he studied the issue after the Cambridge Analytica scandal, leading to B.C. legislative changes prohibiting certain misinformation. He said the Canadian registry’s definition is narrower than the U.S. FARA law, focusing on political and governmental processes, which makes it easier to launch but may miss some activity; he would monitor for gaps and could issue special reports.
Abdelhaq Sari asked about AI-generated content. Boegman said transparency, such as labelling AI-generated ads, is the first step to countering its harmful effects.
Michael Kram compared the registry to the long-gun registry. Boegman said administrative monetary penalties, higher than in the U.S. FARA law, would deter covert activity, and that a low administrative burden for registration would help compliance.
Greaves followed up on the narrow definition. Boegman said the narrower scope helps avoid being overwhelmed at launch, but he would assess gaps and could recommend changes through reports.
The meeting did not include procedural debate, motions or votes.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors; verify against the official evidence.