Canada’s Quiet Election Interference Problem, And Why “Small Scale” Still Matters

When the federal security task force says foreign interference in the last election was “small scale,” it’s easy for the public to breathe a sigh of relief. After all, “small” sounds manageable even ignorable. But in today’s digital landscape, where influence spreads faster than fact, “small” can still be powerful.

The new report from the Security and Intelligence Threats to Elections (SITE) Task Force offers a sobering, if understated, look at how global actors continue to probe Canada’s democracy. The task force, which brings together Global Affairs Canada, CSIS, the RCMP, and the Communications Security Establishment, noted attempts by China and Russia to influence narratives and manipulate information during the 2025 general election.

The activities didn’t rise to the level of triggering a public warning the so-called “panel of five” (comprising senior bureaucrats including the clerk of the Privy Council and the national security adviser) saw no threat significant enough to undermine the integrity of the vote. But what the task force did observe deserves our attention.

Chinese-linked actors amplified contrasting messages about political candidates within Canada’s Chinese-speaking communities. Russia, meanwhile, continued its pattern of online disinformation the kind of steady, low-level interference meant to sow distrust rather than change votes. And as if that weren’t enough, scammers exploited politicians’ names and faces to push cryptocurrency schemes, muddying the waters between misinformation and outright fraud.

None of these incidents derailed democracy. But collectively, they point to a deeper challenge: foreign interference is evolving. It’s no longer just about hacking emails or stealing documents. It’s about shaping perceptions, inflaming divisions, and eroding trust in institutions drip by drip, post by post.

Mark Carney’s new minority Liberal government may not owe its victory to any foreign meddling, but the after-action report makes clear that vigilance cannot end on election night. The panel’s reflection that “electoral integrity must be tended to throughout the full life-cycle of democratic governance” is more than bureaucratic language it’s a call to sustained action.

The separate report on the Liberal leadership race reinforces this point. While no interference changed the outcome, Chinese-backed operations targeted Chrystia Freeland, and the RCMP had to intervene over a “security concern” involving a Carney event. These are not isolated flukes; they’re warning signs.

Canada’s democracy may have passed this latest test, but complacency is the real danger. “Small scale” today could become “significant” tomorrow if left unchecked. Protecting democratic integrity means recognizing that interference is not a one-time threat it’s a constant one, and our defense must be just as constant.