Canada's Foreign Influence Registry Faces Low Uptake and Technical Issues In only two months since its launch, Canada's new foreign influence registry has seen little activity, missing a projected number of registrants and contending with privacy cracks. Experts call for a clearer process and stronger tech to meet transparency goals. The Canadian foreign influence registry, created under the Foreign Influence Transparency and Accountability Act and launched on August 4, has been met with a mixture of curiosity, skepticism and frustration. Its mission is to give the public visibility into who is trying to sway Canadian political and governmental processes on behalf of foreign interests. Yet, more than two months after its rollout, only a handful of entries have emerged, leaving many to question whether the instrument is functioning as intended.Expected Registrants vs RealityWhen the registry opened, the government estimated that roughly 1,550 businesses and 872 individuals would need to register - about 93 per cent of those were Canadian citizens and residents, with the remaining seven per cent foreign stakeholders. The figures were based on comparable schemes in other democracies and a January sensitivity analysis projected a median of 1,767 registrants in its first year. That number has not materialised.By the late‑September deadline, only one active listing existed, and a second arrangement had already ended. A third listing was removed because of a technical glitch that exposed private information, only to be reinstated, only to be wrapped up by mid‑August. The lack of uptake has spurred criticism from national security specialists and industry observers. Ellen West, a Carleton University professor and former consultant to the UK Foreign Office, has argued that Ottawa's commitment to the registry is uneven.She points to the nearly complete absence of large Ottawa‑based firms and the low engagement of small and medium‑sized businesses that are expected to be the registry's primary participants. West's concerns are echoed by Gerald Chipeur, the sole active registrant. Chipeur, a constitutional lawyer who has served as honorary consul for the Republic of Korea in Alberta since 2017, is the only name on the list at present.Sole Registrant Raises QuestionsIn his official disclosure, he describes his role as supporting South Korea's diplomatic objectives and engaging with municipal, provincial and federal officials on behalf of that government. He says he has no issues with his registration but wonders why more people have not followed suit. Is the reach of the notice insufficient? Are businesses receiving ambiguous legal advice?Or are they interpreting the rules too narrowly? He rings the bell for further inquiry. Foreign Influence Registry Commissioner Anton Boegman, meanwhile, defended the launch during an appearance before the Procedure and House Affairs Committee on October 6. Boegman told members of parliament that at least 30 submissions had been received before the April deadline and that technical glitches were being addressed.Yet, an engineer's report last month revealed a privacy breach that exposed the details of one of the pending entries. A review of the system has been ordered and the solution will be rolled out in the coming weeks. The picture that emerges is one of an ambitious policy that is still in its infancy. It suggests that the system's administrative burden may have been under‑estimated, the awareness of the requirement insufficient, and the technical infrastructure fragile.Challenges and Future ImprovementsAs of October 12, the registry contains only Gerald Chipeur's category of activities and two other arrangements that have already ended. The debate around the registry underscores a broader narrative: Canada is grappling with how to protect itself from foreign influence in an era of rapidly evolving digital politics. While the registry alone cannot prevent interference, it remains a key piece of the puzzle.For the objective of transparency to be achieved, the federal government will have to refine the rule‑making process, improve communication with citizens and businesses, and harden the underlying technology so that the system can truly serve its purpose.