Israeli arms maker Elbit Systems now owns a second Canadian winner of a Department of National Defence (DND) challenge to detect “submarines and unmanned underwater vehicles.”

So why should Canadians care? Public money funded two Canadian firms’ work on a military challenge to detect submarines, but the contract records list the rights to that work as the firms’, not Canada’s. An Israeli arms maker now owns both. It owned one before that work was funded, and it says it bought the other in October to expand its underwater intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities. What say Ottawa has over that work, beyond a licence to use it, isn't a simple question. Answering it means digging through contract records, rules on who owns publicly funded research and a takeover law, and this story works through them one at a time.

On October 20, Elbit announced it had completed its purchase of International Submarine Engineering (ISE) of Port Coquitlam, BC. Six days later, Ottawa announced $225,000 in federal support for GeoSpectrum Technologies, a sonar firm in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, that Elbit already owned and that won the same challenge. The release quotes GeoSpectrum’s president saying the funded improvements “have provided us with the space and infrastructure needed.”

DND awarded both companies their challenge contracts in September 2019. Each contract's public record lists the intellectual property (IP), meaning the rights to what the company developed, as "Contractor Owned." Simply put, the rights belong to the company that did the work, while the government, DND says, gets a licence to use the results. So the rights to two pieces of Canadian-funded submarine-detection work were recorded as belonging to firms that Elbit, an Israeli arms maker, now owns. Ottawa's defence industrial strategy, released in February, years after those contracts, says Canada will give priority to Canadian ownership of IP when it buys for the military. The strategy’s section on IP is silent on what happens when a company holding Canadian-funded defence IP is sold to a foreign buyer. Eight months after the strategy came out, that is what happened to ISE.

As for the new funding, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency says the $225,000 is to be repaid. It is for expanding GeoSpectrum’s Dartmouth facility, a project the agency says “is expected to create 40 full-time jobs.” Elbit, GeoSpectrum’s parent company, is based in Haifa, Israel.

‘Helping Canadian companies scale…’

The agency's release, which does not mention Elbit, says GeoSpectrum "currently employs approximately 300 people" and quotes Sean Fraser, the minister responsible for the agency, saying "helping Canadian companies scale helps us meet our own needs."

The September 2019 contracts were two of five awards DND lists in the challenge’s second round, which was meant to develop first-round solutions further. Each company’s contract record says the contract was awarded through open bidding.

Ottawa’s defence industrial strategy has a passage on buying from abroad. Without naming any company or country, it warns that as military equipment comes to rely on sophisticated technologies, “foreign governments and their national defence contractors want to assert control over these technologies and the IP that goes into them.” It says such control “can lead to restrictions on the end-user having access to the needed IP, schematics and software updates.” It also lists “foreign direct investment from reliable partners” among the ways to sustain key military capabilities in Canada, without defining the term.

Both challenge contracts came through IDEaS, DND’s defence innovation program. GeoSpectrum also got funding from the National Research Council’s Industrial Research Assistance Program.

GeoSpectrum’s registered lobbyists reported communicating with then-defence minister Bill Blair in July 2024 and with two of his staff on May 31, 2024. The federal lobbying registry does not record what was said.

The Investment Canada Act, the federal law on foreign takeovers, requires a foreign buyer that takes control of a Canadian business to give notice before the deal takes effect or within 30 days after. Larger deals, above set value thresholds, generally cannot close until the minister is satisfied, after a review, that they are likely to be of net benefit to Canada. Even a notified deal, including one already completed, can face a separate national-security review under Part IV.1 of the Act, within set time limits.

ISE’s winning contract, worth $955,236.55, was to develop a way for an autonomous underwater vehicle to dock with an autonomous surface vessel. Elbit’s announcement says it bought ISE “for a purchase price that is not material to Elbit Systems,” to expand its underwater surveillance, mine-countermeasure and anti-submarine warfare capabilities. The Maple reported on October 20 that ISE and GeoSpectrum had both received IDEaS funding.

GeoSpectrum was already an Elbit subsidiary when it won its $975,809.24 contract on September 17, 2019, a day after ISE's. Elbit was calling GeoSpectrum its Canadian subsidiary by May 2018, more than a year earlier.

‘Contractor Owned’

Why does one line on a contract record matter? It records who owns the intellectual property from Canadian-funded defence work.

The "Contractor Owned" entry on both contracts is routine, not a special deal for these firms. Under the Treasury Board's policy on intellectual property arising from Crown contracts, the contractor owns new IP created under such a contract by default, to encourage firms to commercialize it. The Crown can keep the IP only under listed exceptions, national security among them, or with an exemption approved by the Treasury Board. The records do not show whether DND considered the national-security exception for these contracts, and Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada's guide to the policy says that "if the National Security exception is used, it is not reported."

The Crown keeps a way to use the work. Under the policy, it can require a licence to use contractor-owned IP for government purposes. DND’s IDEaS FAQ says “all IP rights that arise as a result of program funding will remain with the recipient.” It says the Crown gets a royalty-free licence to use and share the results but will not exploit them commercially. The contracts themselves, including their licence terms and any terms on a change of ownership, are not public. In an October 22 column, The Sarnia Journal asked what conditions govern publicly funded work and what happens when ownership changes.

Ottawa’s money, Elbit’s sonar maker

GeoSpectrum says it designs and manufactures “integrated, end-to-end acoustic systems to support maritime surveillance and exploration.”

Federal contract records list 18 GeoSpectrum contracts, worth about $15.6 million including tax, from October 2017 onward. Six, worth about $4.86 million and including GeoSpectrum’s contracts in both IDEaS rounds, list the IP as contractor-owned. These are values at award or last amendment, not payments, and omit some awards, amendments and a $1.15 million contractor-owned contract from 2016.

The Public Accounts, the federal government’s year-end financial statements, list at least $1,576,579 in contributions to GeoSpectrum through the National Research Council’s Industrial Research Assistance Program (IRAP) between the 2018-19 and 2024-25 fiscal years. That is a minimum: the dataset names only recipients that received $100,000 or more in a year.

One of those IRAP agreements is a project to develop a lighter version of GeoSpectrum’s Towed Reelable Active-Passive Sonar, or TRAPS, for uncrewed surface vessels “including the Elbit Seagull and AAI Textron CUSV.” Dated November 2020 and amended once, in August 2021, it is now recorded at $500,000, up from $350,000.

Elbit’s Seagull product page lists “GTI Towed Reelable Active-Passive Sonar (TRAPS),” using GeoSpectrum’s initials, among its sonars and says the vessel “is armed with a 12.7mm remote controlled weapon system, torpedo launching system and a nonlethal weapon system.” Elbit said in 2021 that the Israeli Navy had operated the Seagull since 2017.

Registered contact

The federal lobbying registry records certain communications between lobbyists and senior officials: who was involved, when, and on what general subject. It does not record what was said or what came of it.

GeoSpectrum has lobbied Ottawa through consultants at one firm, Samuel Associates, according to the registrations of Jamie Baillie, Goran Samuel Pesic and Jonas LeBlanc-Wilmink. Their seven reports record communications on its behalf from May to July 2024. They include Blair, in July, and two of his staff at a May 31 meeting, which both Pesic and LeBlanc-Wilmink reported. The others were with two members of Parliament, Darren Fisher, in May and July, and Rick Perkins, and with a DND official.

The Maple reported in April 2026, citing access-to-information records, that Global Affairs Canada export-control officials met a GeoSpectrum vice-president on March 15, 2024, three days before a Commons vote on arms exports to Israel. The department redacted details of what was discussed, it reported.

Separately, Elbit’s own registered consultants reported communications with a senior Public Services and Procurement Canada official on May 4 and June 11, 2024.

Ottawa’s answer

On October 22, two days after Elbit announced the purchase was complete, New Democrat MP Heather McPherson told the House of Commons that Elbit "is acquiring a Canadian submarine company." Noting that the government "has promised to ban trade with illegal settlements," meaning Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, she asked: "Will the federal government step in to stop this acquisition?" Rob Oliphant, parliamentary secretary to the foreign affairs minister, replied: "We will continue to do everything to bring peace, protect the rights of Palestinians and Israelis and ensure that the illegal settlements are not furthered. We will continue to do that every day as we continue to investigate." His answer did not mention Elbit, ISE or the Investment Canada Act, or say what was being investigated or by whom.

What isn’t known

The record does not show who sold ISE or for what price, beyond Elbit’s word that the price was not material to it. Nor does it show the IDEaS contracts’ licence terms, whether they address a change of ownership, or whether DND considered keeping the IP on national-security grounds, a choice the guide says is not reported. It does not show whether anyone in government weighed the strategy’s IP goal as ISE changed hands.

Asked whether Ottawa would step in, Oliphant spoke of “peace and the fragility of the situation in the Middle East” and an unspecified investigation.

A covert CIA program helped suspected Nazi collaborators settle in Canada after the Second World War, according to reporting on a newly released version of a 1986 federal study. Some Canadian immigration officials did not conduct background checks on applicants put forward by U.S. intelligence, a Federal Court judgment recounts.

Historian Alti Rodal prepared the 1986 study for the Deschênes Commission, which investigated alleged Nazi war criminals in Canada. Her research identified the U.S. Army in Europe’s Research and Resettlement Branch as a cover for the CIA and other American intelligence agencies.

The branch aimed to relocate defectors from communism and former agents who had worked for the Americans. Rodal’s account records a U.S. representative acknowledging that some had criminal records. Some cases involved moral turpitude, a category the study said included Nazi collaborators.

The Maple reports that George McManus, an intelligence official involved in the resettlement effort, later served as the CIA’s representative in Ottawa.

Rodal also found that postwar screening prioritized identifying communist infiltrators and spies over Nazis and Nazi collaborators. Canada eventually received details about people admitted through the program, but suspicions about the information’s authenticity persisted.

Published accounts identify 35 people with suspect backgrounds admitted with the program’s assistance and 52 additional applicants rejected by the RCMP, mainly on security grounds. These immigration totals are not a tally of confirmed Nazi collaborators or war criminals.

Rodal assessed that American intelligence personnel were positioned to provide false documents and favourable background information to Canadian visa officers.

Even after releases in June 2023 and February 2024, parts of the study’s account of the American operation remained secret.

In a November 28, 2024 decision, the Information Commissioner accepted the justification for the remaining redactions, including concerns about harm to Canada’s international relations. The commissioner also found that some information had initially been withheld improperly.

On September 1, 2026, Justice Simon Fothergill ruled that the government had not demonstrated that releasing information withheld under the international-affairs and security exemption would cause the required harm. The court upheld one redaction protecting confidential information received from a foreign government.

The Canadian Press reported on October 8 that the government had not appealed and that Library and Archives Canada had provided the latest version of the study.

Part II of the commission’s final report remains withheld in full. Government briefing materials describe it as containing the master list of individuals investigated, case assessments, and the commissioner’s findings and recommendations.

Canada’s long-delayed foreign influence registry is set to come into force on August 4, supposedly giving Ottawa a new public database for people and entities working on behalf of foreign states to influence Canadian politics.

The registry was created after years of warnings about foreign interference, much of it focused on China, India, Russia, and Iran. The new rules require people and entities who enter arrangements with “foreign principals” to register influence activities tied to Canadian political or governmental processes, including communications with public office holders, distributing money or other benefits, and disseminating information, including on social media. Existing arrangements will have 60 days to register once the law comes into force.

Per the Globe and Mail, Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree’s office said Canada remains committed to countering foreign interference “in all its forms” and ensuring attempts to influence democratic institutions on behalf of foreign interests are met with “vigilance and accountability.”

Whether Ottawa will apply that standard consistently is about to be tested.

Several clear recent cases did not involve China, India, Russia, or Iran. They involved Israel-linked campaigns targeting Canadians, politicians, public opinion, and government policy.

A pattern of deception

A recent report by Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) shows that Israel has carried out a wider pattern of covert influence activity in Canada, ranging from undisclosed polling and legal pressure campaigns to propaganda trips, online disinformation, and surveillance of activists.

The report, titled Israeli Foreign Influence, Interference, and Transnational Repression in Canada, says Israel has used Canadian individuals and businesses as proxies to conceal its role in influence activities. It says those activities have been directed by the Israeli consulate in Toronto and by Israel’s ministries of Foreign Affairs, Diaspora Affairs and Justice. This should not be surprising when considering that Israel’s 2026 budget reserves $730 million USD for campaigns to boost the country’s image overseas. This is known as “hasbara.”

This case points to a double standard in Canada’s approach to foreign-interference. Ottawa has treated claims of interference by China, India, Russia and Iran as a national-security threat, while Israeli-linked activity has not received the same level of scrutiny or accountability.

“The pattern of deception and disinformation outlined in this report demonstrates the malicious role of the Israeli state in interfering in Canadian public affairs, undermining the rights and safety of Canadians,” the report says. It calls the alleged conduct “rogue state behaviour” and says it has taken place in Canada “with a total lack of accountability.”

The group is calling on Ottawa to recognize Israel as a foreign-interference and transnational-repression threat actor, expel Israeli diplomats found to be involved in interference or repression, sanction people and organizations responsible for disinformation campaigns, apply the new foreign influence registry to people cooperating with the Israeli government, and ban federal procurement and operation of Israeli spyware.

Several examples are laid out.

The first case involves a poll CJPME says was designed to manipulate Canadian opinion about Gaza.

According to the report, citing reporting by The Breach, Israel’s consulate in Toronto secretly commissioned the October 2023 poll through Aurora Strategies Global, a Toronto public-relations firm, without disclosing that the consulate was behind it. Per The Breach, the poll used misleading and biased language to sway results in support of Israel’s assault on Gaza. Aurora is headed by Marcel Wieder, who the Globe and Mail labelled a “dirty-tricks man” in 1999.

The poll also reached Liberal insiders before publication. According to The Breach, members of a “Lib Friends of Israel” WhatsApp group were told the poll “was done on behalf of the Israeli Consulate in Toronto” and discussed sharing it with the Prime Minister’s Office ahead of its release to “inform their thinking.”

The episode fits a CSIS definition of foreign interference previously cited by NSICOP: a foreign state covertly using a proxy to influence decisions, events or outcomes in its own strategic interest. Here, the Israeli consulate used a Canadian public-relations firm to shape Canadian opinion about Gaza while hiding its role.

The wine label dispute

The second case centres on Canada’s labelling of goods from illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank.

In 2019, the Federal Court of Canada ruled that “Product of Israel” labels on settlement goods were misleading, false, and deceptive. After that ruling, Israel’s Ministry of Justice secretly hired a Toronto law firm to intervene in the dispute over how Canada would label those products.

Between 2019 and 2021, per reporting from The Breach, the firm was paid by the Israeli government to advise on food regulations, prepare talking points for discussions with Canadian authorities, and attend court hearings on Israel’s behalf while keeping Israel’s role out of public view. The federal government later appealed the Federal Court ruling, effectively siding with Israeli settlement wineries in defence of the “Product of Israel” labels.

Here, Israel allegedly hid behind a Canadian law firm to intervene in a regulatory process and keep its role out of public view.

Paid trips, undisclosed sponsors

The report also points to Israeli-funded trips for Canadian politicians, journalists, and public figures.

The Ontario-based Exigent Foundation organized at least eight trips to Israel for journalists and media personalities. According to PressProgress, at least two of those trips in late 2025 were secretly funded by Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which approved almost $175,000 CAD toward them.

Israel’s role was not disclosed by Exigent or the participants, even when some participants later published articles about their trips in Canadian outlets.

Propaganda junkets

The report also points to Israeli-government-sponsored propaganda junkets targeting Canadian political and media figures.

In late 2025, the Israeli consulate in Toronto organized a week-long “Canadian political leadership mission” to Israel for what its invitation called “a carefully chosen group of public leaders from across Canada.” Participants included Toronto councillors James Pasternak and Mike Colle, former Montreal mayor Denis Coderre, Ben Mulroney, Steve Paikin, former Green Party leader Annamie Paul, and former independent MP Kevin Vuong.

Israeli Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Sharren Haskel said she briefed the delegation on the need to “stand with Israel and stand with our shared values.”

The consulate’s invitation said ground travel, accommodations, meals and program costs were provided by the Consulate of Israel. The Toronto Star reported that the consulate paid nearly $10,000 for the trips by Pasternak and Colle, who were required to disclose the gifts as city councillors.

Others face no disclosure rules. Ben Mulroney has said his trip was fully paid by the Israeli government, while Paikin has said he paid his own expenses. For journalists, future candidates, advisers and public figures, disclosure is largely voluntary.

This does not rise to the same level as covert interference, because Israel did not necessarily hide its role. But it is still foreign-state-sponsored influence: paid access to Canadian elites, organized by a government trying to build support for Israel and influence Canadian politics. The ethical issue is not new. In 1985, Brian Mulroney banned his colleagues from accepting paid trips to apartheid South Africa.

AI-fuelled disinformation

The most explosive example involves online disinformation.

The report spotlights that Israel’s Ministry of Diaspora Affairs funded and orchestrated a large-scale secret foreign influence campaign targeting progressives and lawmakers in Canada and the United States, citing investigations by Haaretz and The New York Times.

Per the investigations, Israel commissioned a Tel Aviv political marketing firm to create fake English-language websites, including United Citizens for Canada, along with hundreds of fake social media accounts powered by ChatGPT. The campaign pushed racist and pro-Israel messages. FakeReporter described the messaging as portraying Canadians of Islamic origin as threats to Western values and suggesting Muslims in Canada sought to impose Sharia law.

It was later reported that Global Affairs Canada had corroborated “elements” of the allegations and raised concerns with Israel. Then-deputy prime minister Chrystia Freeland said foreign interference “from any country is not acceptable in this country.”

No further action was taken to hold the Israeli government accountable.

The report also accuses Israel of transnational repression in Canada, including efforts to restrict democratic rights, monitor pro-Palestinian activity, profile activists, and pressure governments to treat criticism of Israel as antisemitism.

One section cites Israeli Ambassador Iddo Moed’s comments that Israel wanted Canada to change how it tackles antisemitism and “limit” certain “freedoms,” which amounts to advocacy for restrictions on Canadian civil liberties and the suppression of criticism of Israel’s human-rights record.

The report also says Israel’s Ministry of Diaspora Affairs has monitored pro-Palestine activity in Canada since at least 2023, issuing reports about upcoming events, tracking online engagement and naming organizers. One ministry report, CJPME says, profiled critics of Israel such as former Ontario MPP Sarah Jama and journalist Samira Mohyeddin alongside violent attacks on Jewish institutions, implying a connection between their speech and those attacks.

Israel’s spyware industry

Then there is Israel’s spyware industry.

Israeli spyware has been used around the world to target dissidents, journalists, and human-rights activists. NSO Group’s Pegasus is the best-known example. It has been linked to repression by foreign states, the targeting of Palestinian human-rights defenders, and the surveillance of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi before his murder.

The problem is not limited to Pegasus. Citizen Lab and Amnesty International found evidence in 2021 of Israeli hacking of Palestinian activists’ phones, while Citizen Lab has also found Israeli spyware being used by Gulf states to target activists in Canada. The report argues this leaves Middle Eastern communities in Canada especially vulnerable to transnational repression, whether by Israel or by other states using Israeli-made tools.

Other Israeli-linked surveillance firms raise similar concerns. Cytrox’s Predator spyware has been used to target Egyptian activists. Cytrox was launched with seed funding from Israel Aerospace Industries, a state-run Israeli company. Israeli firm Paragon Solutions’ Graphite spyware was used to target Italian journalists.

Closer to home, former prime minister Stephen Harper is a leading partner at AWZ Ventures, a Toronto-based firm that finances Israeli surveillance companies and is led by former Israeli intelligence officials. Technologies financed by AWZ have reportedly been used by Israel in the mass surveillance of Palestinians and by Greece in the surveillance of refugee camps.

I wrote more about Harper’s involvement with AWZ in a previous report.

The RCMP has acknowledged using “On-Device Investigative Tools” with spyware-like capabilities, while denying it used Pegasus. However, the Ontario Provincial Police has been linked to Paragon Solutions, and Edmonton police have used facial-recognition software from Corsight AI, an Israeli company whose technology has reportedly been used for mass surveillance in Gaza.

That creates an obvious conflict. Canadian agencies are supposed to protect people in Canada from foreign surveillance, yet some have used spyware tools or built ties with the same Israeli-linked surveillance sector. In 2022, a House of Commons committee recommended that Canada create a blacklist of spyware vendors barred from federal procurement. The government response addressed export controls but dodged the procurement ban. CBC/Radio-Canada later reported that 13 federal departments and agencies were using spyware as of 2023.

The report’s core demand is consistency.

Canada is preparing to launch a registry meant to expose and track foreign influence in domestic politics. CJPME says that system cannot be reserved for some states while ignoring others.

If Ottawa is serious about countering foreign interference “in all its forms,” the test is whether that standard applies when the foreign actor is Israel.

As the United States and Iran moved toward an agreement, Prime Minister Mark Carney publicly welcomed the proposal. Speaking from the G7 summit in France on June 16, 2026, Carney described the arrangement as a “game changer” and suggested Canada could play a role in aspects of its implementation.

Iranian officials said the memorandum requires an end to military operations “on all fronts,” including Lebanon, where Israel has seized a large swath of land, displacing more than a million people. In the days following the announcement, however, Israeli forces launched fresh strikes on Lebanon, reportedly killing civilians. Netanyahu has also made clear that Israeli troops will remain in southern Lebanon regardless of what Washington negotiates, casting immediate doubt on whether the agreement can survive. Even so, the process moved forward. Days later, U.S. and Iranian officials remotely signed a memorandum of understanding aimed at reopening the Strait of Hormuz and ending the latest phase of the war.

Regardless of whether the agreement holds, it comes after years of Western pressure on Iran, a campaign in which Canada played an overlooked role. I explored parts of that story in a previous deep dive. This time, I want to pull on a few threads that deserve closer attention.

‘Direct diplomacy’

Western governments have relied on a range of tools to shape how events are understood both inside Iran and abroad. In Canada’s case, that approach has extended beyond sanctions and diplomacy into less visible forms of engagement.

One such effort emerged after Ottawa severed diplomatic relations with Tehran in 2012. According to official government statements at the time, it formed part of a wider shift in how Canada engaged countries where it lacked embassies. Hosted at the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs, the program was developed under a strategy known as “direct diplomacy,” a term used by officials to describe efforts to engage civil society without restoring formal diplomatic ties.

According to program descriptions, it engaged Iranian participants directly through digital platforms that organizers said were designed to circumvent state controls, and connected diaspora communities with political discussions about Iran’s future.

This project was called the Global Dialogue on the Future of Iran. The initiative began with $250,000 in federal funding and was later expanded as part of a broader $9 million government investment in “digital engagement tools.”

The platform allowed users inside Iran to participate anonymously in discussions, with hundreds of thousands of logins recorded during its early phases. Tools developed through the initiative were then used by millions of Iranians over several years, according to program organizers. The initiative reflected Ottawa’s effort to maintain influence in Iran despite the absence of formal diplomatic relations, and it was spearheaded by Janice Stein, then director of the Munk School. The initiative emerged during a period when the Munk School and the University of Toronto were developing increasingly close relationships with Israeli officials and institutions. Stein would later join Ontario premier Kathleen Wynne’s 2016 mission to Israel, while the university expanded partnerships with Israeli institutions, part of a trend that continued over the following years.

I contacted Stein and the Munk School in April with a short list of questions. Neither has responded.

‘Israel has no greater friend in the world than Canada’

The direct diplomacy approach unfolded alongside a broader alignment with Israel, a defining feature of Canada’s foreign policy during this period that shaped its posture toward Iran and its framing of regional threats. Under former prime minister Stephen Harper and his foreign minister, John Baird, this took the form of an explicitly pro-Israel position paired with a hardline stance on Tehran, framing Iran as a central regional threat—and, at times, as a threat to global security.

During a 2012 visit to Israel, Baird said, “Israel has no greater friend in the world than Canada.” Then-Israeli finance minister Yuval Steinitz reportedly remarked at a reception that Canada was “an even better friend of Israel than we [Israelis] are.”

After leaving public office, Baird joined the board of directors at the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, a self-described Zionist organization that lobbies Canadian policymakers on behalf of the state of Israel.

As for Harper himself, Canada’s voting pattern at the United Nations shifted during his time in office, becoming firmly aligned with Israel and the United States after his government secured a majority in 2011.

In 2014, Harper became the first Canadian prime minister to address Israel’s parliament, where he pledged that Canada would stand with Israel “through fire and water.” His government had deepened bilateral relations with Israel across trade, security cooperation, and diplomatic alignment, while also hardening Canada’s posture toward Iran through sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and related measures.

And that relationship extended beyond Harper’s time in office. After leaving government, he joined a venture capital firm that has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in companies tied to Israel’s security and intelligence sectors, including firms developing surveillance, facial recognition, and military technologies. Harper has described the work as a continuation of the same values he promoted while in government.

Fast forward to today, and elements of the same approach remain visible in Canada’s political leadership. Harper has endorsed Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre, whose positions on Israel and Iran largely continue those of his Conservative predecessor, while former foreign minister Baird served as co-chair of Poilievre’s leadership campaign.

In October 2024, Poilievre said of Iran, “I think the idea of allowing a genocidal, theocratic, unstable dictatorship that is desperate to avoid being overthrown by its own people to develop nuclear weapons is about the most dangerous and irresponsible thing that the world could ever allow.” He added that Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites would be a “gift to humanity.”

Poilievre has also loudly championed the 2026 U.S.–Israeli military action in Iran. On the same day a U.S.-manufactured Tomahawk missile struck a school in Minab, southern Iran, killing children, he took to social media to again call Tehran the “principal source of terror in the Middle East and around the world” and accuse it of wanting to nuke Canada’s allies. He did not mention the school.

‘We will not open diplomatic relationships with Iran unless there is a regime change’

The governing Liberals, in power for more than a decade under two leaders, have largely maintained the same hardline approach.

Former prime minister Justin Trudeau, elected in 2015, expanded sanctions against individuals associated with the Iranian government. His office said the measures “build on our previous actions, which were already some of the strongest in the world against the Iranian regime.” His government later designated the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist group in June 2024.

As for the current Prime Minister, Mark Carney, the underlying approach has remained largely unchanged.

In January, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Carney acknowledged in a widely circulated speech what critics of Western foreign policy have argued for years: “We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false,” he said. “The strongest would exempt themselves when convenient… international law applied with varying rigour depending on the identity of the accused or the victim.” He added that “this fiction was useful,” and that “we participated in the rituals, and we largely avoided calling out the gaps between rhetoric and reality.”

Carney’s comments were framed as a pivot. Yet they come from a leader who has operated within that system, including as governor of the Bank of England during the period when Venezuelan gold reserves held in London were frozen amid a broader political dispute. Despite rhetorical distance from the United States and warmer engagement with China, Canada’s policy toward Iran appears largely unchanged.

For example, one month after Carney’s speech, his Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand told reporters that Canada would not restore diplomatic relations with Iran without a change in government. “We will not open diplomatic relationships with Iran unless there is a regime change,” she said. “Period.” The same day, Anand announced further sanctions against individuals linked to the Iranian government.

Carney initially expressed support for U.S. attacks on Iran, later claiming he did so with “regret.” Then, the following day, he declined to rule out Canadian involvement.

‘Canada should oppose intervention by big powers’

Canadian leaders have consistently framed foreign policy in the language of universal ideals: Harper vowed Canada would not waver in its “defence of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law,” at home and abroad, and Trudeau promised Canada would help build “a more peaceful and prosperous world.” Carney has echoed similar sentiments.

Samir Saul, a professor of international history at the Université de Montréal, argues that the language of security and freedom is often used to justify pressure campaigns abroad. He sees limited independence in Canadian foreign policy on major geopolitical decisions and says Canada should oppose intervention by major powers in the internal affairs of other countries, both on principle and out of self-interest.

In Western political discourse, Iran is often framed as a threat. Saul disputes that characterization, arguing that Western governments have instead sought to pressure Iran and pursue a government change in ways that serve their own strategic interests.

“It is the West that wants to threaten Iran, to overthrow its regime, and put in its place a puppet regime so that the West can control Iran,” Saul told me in separate reporting for Coastal Front. Political change within Iran, he added, should come from within, not through external intervention.

“That’s their choice to make,” he said.

And this pattern has deeper roots. In Iran, it stretches back decades.

In the early 1950s, Iran’s prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, moved to nationalize the country’s oil industry, challenging British control over Iranian resources. Canada’s Department of External Affairs publicly criticized the move, echoing British concerns that it could lead to instability and communist influence.

When Britain imposed an embargo on Iranian oil to weaken Mossadegh’s government, Canada followed suit. In August 1953, Mossadegh was overthrown in a coup orchestrated by U.S. and British intelligence services — the CIA’s Operation Ajax and MI6’s Operation Boot.

Within two years, Canada established diplomatic relations with Iran under Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah, who consolidated power and ruled for the next 26 years.

When the Shah was overthrown in 1979, Canada shuttered its embassy in Tehran, which remained closed for nearly a decade before reopening, and diplomatic engagement stayed limited for years afterward. This trajectory culminated in 2012, when the Harper government severed diplomatic relations with Iran entirely by expelling Iranian diplomats and again closing its embassy in Tehran.

That rupture, along with the shift toward sanctions, alignment with the United States and Israel, and indirect forms of engagement, has largely defined Canada’s approach to Iran for more than a decade. Now, as Washington pursues a deal and Carney voices support for its implementation, Israel is openly resisting parts of the arrangement. Whether this is a genuine split or merely a temporary disagreement remains to be seen.

It is worth remembering that apparent disagreements between the United States and Israel have often been short-lived. Like scattered mercury, they tend to find their way back together. Then again, the political conditions that sustained that relationship for decades are not what they once were.

What is clear is that the pressure campaign Canada spent years supporting did not end with regime change in Tehran. It ended with Washington signing a deal.

Ottawa, as ever, appears ready to adjust accordingly.

Give it a watch.

Six years after Iran shot down a commercial airliner, killing 176 people, key questions remain unanswered, and Canadian officials continue to promise accountability while invoking the tragedy to seemingly advance political objectives.

Fifty-five Canadian citizens and 30 permanent residents were among those killed when Iranian forces downed the aircraft shortly after takeoff from Tehran in January 2020. All 176 people on board were killed. The incident triggered international investigations, political outrage, and competing narratives.

Iran attributes the shootdown to human error, and findings from Canada’s forensic report and a UN special rapporteur have not established conclusive evidence that the shootdown was intentional. Yet this has not prevented Canadian political leaders from treating the question of intent as settled.

Earlier this year, the Canadian government again stated it remains committed to “justice, accountability, transparency and solidarity” with the victims’ families.

Alongside these statements, Canada — together with Sweden, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom through the International Coordination and Response Group — has advanced legal proceedings against Iran. The group filed an application at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 2023 under the 1971 Montreal Convention, and in 2024 initiated dispute-settlement proceedings before the ICAO Council under the Chicago Convention.

In March 2025, ICAO rejected Iran’s objection and confirmed its jurisdiction over the case. Iran has since challenged that decision at the International Court of Justice. As of 2026, both processes remain ongoing, with hearings still pending and no timeline for resolution.

Tragedy as a result of human error, says Iran

Iran’s Civil Aviation Organization maintains that the flight was downed by two missiles due to “human error” in operating a surface-to-air defence system.

At the time, Iran’s air defences were on high alert. Days earlier, the United States assassinated IRGC General Qasem Soleimani in Iraq, an operation the Iraqi government said was carried out without its knowledge or consent.

That same day, the US military also targeted Abdul Reza Shahlai, a commander in Iran’s Quds Force. The attempt was unsuccessful, and another Quds Force operative was killed instead.

Five days later, on January 8, Iran launched precision ballistic missile strikes on US bases in Iraq, including the Ain al-Assad base from which the drone strike was launched. The strikes caused no US fatalities.

Later that morning, Flight PS752 was shot down shortly after takeoff from Tehran.

Three days later, Iranian authorities acknowledged that the aircraft had been downed.

Iran’s final report cited a 105-degree misalignment in an air defence unit following a tactical relocation, causing the operator to misidentify the aircraft as an incoming hostile target. The operator reportedly attempted to communicate with command but did not receive a response. Without confirmation, he identified the aircraft as hostile, and fired.

A central question was why Flight 752 was allowed to take off amid such heightened tensions. Iran’s report states that while many flights were halted, the risk from Tehran airport was assessed as “very low.”

Ukraine dismissed the report as a “cynical attempt” to hide the truth. Canadian officials said it failed to address critical aspects of the incident.

A UN special rapporteur later said Iran’s explanations contained inconsistencies, but found no concrete evidence that the aircraft was intentionally targeted.

Canada’s own forensic report reached a similar conclusion. While it found Iran fully responsible for the downing, it did not find evidence that the attack was premeditated.

Addressing the Iranian parliament days later, the IRGC’s chief commander expressed regret, reportedly saying he wished he had been inside the downed plane.

Intent

The question of whether the downing of Flight 752 was intentional remains unresolved.

Yet the tragedy is frequently invoked by political leaders in terms that presume intent.

On February 28, as the United States and Israel launched strikes on Iran amid negotiations for the second time in less than a year, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre took to social media to describe Tehran as the “principal source of terror in the Middle East and around the world” and to call for regime change.

He went on to make a number of sweeping claims, including that Tehran wants to nuke Canada’s allies, has massacred tens of thousands of its own citizens, and that it “murdered Canadian passengers on Flight PS752.”

To characterize the shootdown as murder or terrorism in this context requires intent. This has not been definitively established in official findings, and while that distinction does not absolve Iran of responsibility, it suggests that Canadian MPs citing the tragedy in these terms are either misinformed or deliberately misleading.

Poilievre’s language reflects a broader pattern in Canadian political discourse. Despite differences between his circle and the governing Liberals under Prime Minister Mark Carney, a more hawkish posture toward Iran is a point of overlap between them.

For example, in Poilievre’s circle is John Baird, his former leadership campaign co-chair and foreign affairs minister under Stephen Harper. In 2012, Baird labelled Iran “the most significant threat to global peace and security,” closed Canada’s embassy in Tehran, and expelled Iranian diplomats.

That same year, Canada designated Iran a “supporter of terrorism” under the State Immunity Act, enabling victims to pursue claims under the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act.

Baird later joined the board of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA), which lobbies Canadian policymakers on behalf of a foreign government with a stated interest in regime change in Iran.

Conservative MP Melissa Lantsman has also repeatedly called the incident a mass murder, citing it in calls supporting US and Israeli strikes on Iran.

Lantsman has been heavily lobbied by CIJA.

Liberal and NDP MPs have echoed similar positions. Liberal MP Anthony Housefather, one of CIJA’s most lobbied MPs, cited the tragedy when advocating for the IRGC to be designated a terrorist organization.

Terrorism, like murder, requires intent. That has not been established in the downing of Flight 752.

Canada’s Flight 752 Investigation

The Canadian report was led by Jeff Yaworski, former Deputy Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS).

Yaworski’s career, much like that of his Iranian counterparts, is not without controversy.

As reported by the Globe and Mail, Yaworski travelled to Ankara, Turkey, in March 2015 to persuade Turkish authorities to remain silent about CSIS’s recruitment of a Syrian human smuggler who had trafficked three British teenage girls to Islamic State militants.

The Globe cited sources describing a “discreet but high-level campaign” to prevent the agency from being publicly blamed for using the smuggler as an operative. Yaworski and CSIS declined to comment.

The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. His father, Ron Yaworski, was Superintendent of the RCMP’s Security Service before its replacement by CSIS in 1984 following major scandals.

Documents show Ron Yaworski oversaw the destruction of sensitive files related to Operation Checkmate in 1974–75. A 1981 Royal Commission later revealed the operation involved illegal tactics against domestic groups considered adversarial to the state.

A 1985 Ottawa Citizen clipping establishes the familial link, connecting two generations of senior intelligence officials involved in covering up controversial activities.

In detailing Yaworski’s report, former prime minister Justin Trudeau called for Iran to be held accountable for what he described as “the cover-up that followed the downing of Flight 752.” The accusation suggests a deliberate effort by Iran to obscure the circumstances of the incident, which may well be the case. But the selection of Jeff Yaworski — given his and his family’s involvement in covering up controversial government activities — as the leader of the investigation adds an element of irony to the narrative.

Double standards

Canada has imposed multiple rounds of sanctions on Iranian individuals and entities, freezing assets and prohibiting financial dealings, while Canadian leaders have issued public statements supporting US and Israeli strikes on Iran, at times invoking Flight 752 in that context.

Canada’s actions have largely aligned with those of the United States and its allies, a pattern that stands in contrast to how those same allies’ actions are treated in comparable incidents.

For example, on July 3, 1988, Iran Air Flight 655 was shot down by the American missile cruiser USS Vincennes, killing all 290 people on board, including 66 children. Not until 1996, with the matter before the International Court of Justice, did the United States agree to pay $131 million in compensation to Iran and the families of the victims. The tragedy is largely forgotten in the United States, but it remains well remembered in Iran.

Incidents involving those same allies have drawn little response from Ottawa. On February 28, 2026, a missile strike destroyed a primary school in Minab, Iran, killing 168 people, including more than 100 children.

Investigations by outlets including The New York Times, CBC, NPR, and BBC Verify have concluded that the United States was likely responsible for the strike, a finding reportedly corroborated by sources involved with the US military’s internal investigation.

All of the incidents discussed involved the killing of civilians and the loss of hundreds of lives, and all warrant accountability. The difference lies in how governments respond, and how those tragedies are interpreted and used.

Canada’s foreign policy is frequently presented as emphasizing concern for human rights above all. Its record in Iran, however, tells a different story. I hesitate to use the terms “misinformation” and “disinformation,” as they have become tools for shutting down debate. In the case of Iran, though, they are apt.

Yesterday, I published an in-depth report that lays all of this out. Give it a read when you have time to digest it. Scrutinize it carefully, line by line.

Read the article HERE.

Today I published a report in Coastal Front detailing how a Vancouver-based society has received millions in funding from three levels of government, yet businesses hired to support its events were left unpaid. Private interests are also closely tied to its operations.

Working on this one has been quite the circus, and I strongly suspect there will be more to come.

Read the report here.

On Thursday, I published an in-depth report with Coastal Front examining the claims made in the US Justice Department’s indictment against Maduro, Canada’s role in efforts to undermine and displace Venezuela’s government, CIA involvement in drug trafficking, and more. Give it a read HERE.

A new paper examines what it calls the “largely unexamined” relationship between Canada’s banking sector and the country’s housing crisis. The report, released by the international housing rights organization The Shift, analyzes how bank lending practices, mortgage securitization, and commercial financing standards shape housing unaffordability, household debt, and tenant displacement. The result is a housing system increasingly structured around financial imperatives, not affordability.

For decades, public debate about Canada’s housing crisis has focused on population pressures, zoning practices, construction bottlenecks, or investor demand. Less attention has been paid to the institutions that mediate nearly every financial transaction in the system: the country’s major banks. As detailed in The Shift’s analysis, Canada’s largest mortgage lenders — RBC, TD, Scotiabank, CIBC, BMO, and Desjardins — play a determinative role in shaping both the price of ownership and the stability of rental housing. The six largest banks earned close to $60 billion in profits last year, the same period in which mortgage debt reached $2.2 trillion, roughly 85 percent of Canada’s GDP, one of the highest ratios in the developed world.

Mortgage credit as a price engine

One of the report’s central findings is that mortgage credit expansion is a primary driver of rising home prices. Citing economists, the OECD, and the International Monetary Fund, the report explains that when households can access more mortgage credit — whether because interest rates have fallen, down payment requirements have been reduced, or amortization periods have lengthened — they are able to bid higher on homes. These bids, in turn, reset market expectations and push comparable prices upward.

The report offers a simple analogy: when the price of cauliflower or almonds rises due due weather events, consumers buy less. Housing operates differently. When prices rise, financial institutions and government policies often tell households they can still “afford” a home by extending more credit through low-interest loans, reduced down-payment requirements, or longer amortization periods. This keeps prices high. During the pandemic, for example, record-low interest rates made mortgages significantly cheaper, contributing to rapid increases in home prices. Even as the Bank of Canada raised interest rates back up to five percent in 2023, national price declines remained marginal. This indicates that deeper financial forces in the housing system can outweigh both rising interest rates and traditional supply-and-demand dynamics.

This cycle of more credit, higher prices, increased lending, and growing household debt creates what the report describes as a “positive feedback cycle” within the housing market. The cumulative result is that mortgage lending has become a dominant activity for Canadian banks: mortgages now represent 70 percent of all bank lending and about 50 percent of the banking system’s assets.

Policy choices that deepen household debt

The report emphasizes that government policy interacts with these lending practices in ways that often intensify debt burdens. A key example is the federal decision to increase the price cap for insured mortgages from $1 million to $1.5 million. Under this change, a homebuyer can now purchase a $1.2-million property with a down payment of just $95,000 — far below the 20 percent threshold typical under international Basel III standards. While the government framed the change as a way to support first-time buyers, The Shift’s analysis finds it contributes to higher household debt loads while also helping inflate home prices.

The report also notes that between 2021 and 2023, the share of residential mortgages with amortization periods exceeding 30 years rose from zero to roughly one-third. These extended timelines lower monthly payments in the short term, but they come at a high long-term cost. A 30-year mortgage on a $500,000 loan at 5.5 percent interest generates about $515,500 in interest — 21 percent more interest than the same loan paid over 25 years — while only reducing monthly payments by roughly seven percent.

At the household level, these dynamics are reflected in rising financial strain. By 2022, about 32 percent of mortgage holders were reportedly spending more than they earned, and 65 percent reported difficulty meeting financial obligations.

Securitization and financialization of mortgages

Another major theme in the report is the scale and impact of mortgage securitization — the process through which banks pool mortgages, obtain government-backed insurance through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), and sell these bundles as securities to investors. According to The Shift, about $503 billion in Canadian mortgages had been securitized by the end of 2023, comprising nearly a quarter of all outstanding mortgages.

Securitization provides banks with substantial liquidity, allowing them to issue more mortgages. It also transforms homeowners’ monthly payments into revenue streams for institutional investors such as pension funds and asset managers. While banks continue to interact with borrowers, their primary financial client in this structure becomes the investor. Borrowers may be unaware that their mortgage has been sold, and lenders are not required to disclose this. With CMHC guaranteeing these securities, investors are protected from losses while the public assumes the financial risk, thus exposing taxpayers to the consequences of potential downturns. The safety of that guarantee fuels strong demand for mortgage-backed securities and helps sustain high levels of mortgage lending. It also links Canada’s housing market to global capital flows, since overseas institutional investors are among those buying these securities.

Commercial financing and pressures in the rental market

The report also examines bank practices in the multi-unit rental sector, where commercial financing criteria can influence rent levels and tenant stability. A central metric is the Debt Service Coverage Ratio (DSCR), which requires that a building’s net operating income exceed its annual debt payments by a set percentage, typically 25 percent. This calculation, The Shift notes, creates incentives for landlords to increase rents or reduce operating costs to meet or exceed the threshold required for favourable financing terms.

Banks also assess capitalization rates, which favour buildings that generate higher rental income or show potential for revenue growth. According to the report, this contributes to a tiered lending system in which renovated or repositioned buildings — those able to command higher rents — receive more favourable financing terms, while older buildings with below-market rents face stricter ones. This dynamic does not arise because banks intend to cause displacement, but because lending rules unintentionally reward landlords who increase rents through renovations or tenant turnover. As a result, the system can encourage renovation-driven displacement and make it harder for non-profit housing providers to compete, since they face higher equity requirements and more restrictive loan conditions.

Symbiotic system

Throughout the analysis, The Shift stresses that these dynamics do not operate independently. Banks function within a broader ecosystem of government policy, CMHC insurance structures, and institutional investor demand. These actors form a symbiotic system in which lending practices, financial instruments, and revenue models reinforce one another, often with consequences for affordability and housing stability.

Recommendations

The report concludes with several recommendations aimed at reshaping the relationship between banking practices and housing outcomes. These include reforms to commercial lending criteria to account for tenant security, improved transparency around mortgage securitization, specialized lending units for non-profit housing providers, and requirements for banks to assess the climate impact of their real estate financing. The Shift also calls for amendments to the Bank Act to better align lending practices with the principles of the National Housing Strategy Act. You can read the 34-page report here.

“Why should I care?” some of you might be asking.

The following report — building upon and highlighting previous work I’ve done on the topic — will help you understand why, in fact, you should care.

So, if you’re paying taxes in Canada, let’s dive into how you and I helped fund the ousting of Syria’s former president, clearing the way for a veteran of al-Qaeda to take power.

How Canada helped fund a covert propaganda campaign in the Middle East

For years, the Government of Canada funded organizations at the forefront of developing a sophisticated propaganda system targeting the Middle East — a campaign that was meticulously designed to cultivate support for Syria’s armed opposition, including efforts to “soften” the image of militias that were opposed to former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, as revealed by leaked documents.

This underscores the ethical implications of using taxpayer money, whether intentional or not, to fund foreign propaganda efforts, highlighting the interplay between foreign aid initiatives and the shaping of international public opinion.

In 2020, a shadowy hacking collective released a plethora of documents, shedding light on a covert project led predominantly by the British government. This project aimed to craft a pro-opposition narrative surrounding the Syrian civil war, a narrative that subsequently influenced the majority of Western media coverage of the conflict.

These documents exposed how Western intelligence cutouts manipulated both English and Arabic language media outlets. They trained, supported, and mentored Syrian media activists aligned with the “United Kingdom’s vision and values for a future Syria.”

The documents, comprising hundreds of the UK’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) files, detailed Syria propaganda operations, revealing that while all named firms were contracted by the British government, many also ran “multi-donor projects” funded by the United States and other countries, including Canada.

As a main recipient of Canadian funding among the organizations named in the leaked documents, ARK Group DMCC, a consulting firm based in the United Arab Emirates, piqued my interest. A probe into the organization reveals that the firm siphoned millions from Canadian taxpayers through a multitude of avenues.

Canada’s funding, in this case, is one strand in the broader web of efforts led by the UK, illustrating how “foreign aid” helped craft and spread narratives about Syria, creating the fertile ground for Assad to be overthrown.

Breach confirmed

In September 2020, Ian Cobain of the Middle East Eye confirmed that hackers had penetrated the computer systems of the UK’s FCDO, exposing hundreds of documents. These documents shed light on Britain’s covert propaganda operations in Syria during its civil war and Canada’s financial backing of these efforts, unveiling the FCDO’s partnership with “private contractors” to sway Syrian public opinion against the Assad regime through “strategic communications.” This effort involved the production and distribution of carefully curated media content — ranging from radio broadcasts to digital media — to bolster support for what ARK and Western governments dubbed the “moderate opposition.”

The breach came to light when some documents were published online, triggering an internal alert within the FCDO and leading to briefings for top officials, including Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab, reports Cobain. The cyberattack ironically raised alarm over a potential state-sponsored operation, with British officials casting unsubstantiated suspicions toward Russian intelligence.

When I sought a comment from the FCDO, the office was evasive, initially inquiring about my interest before ultimately declining to provide any statement. No surprise.

Canadians rinsed by foreign intelligence contractors

While not directly named in Cobain’s report, ARK Group DMCC — previously ARK FZC and ARK Group — was extensively detailed in the leaked documents. For reasons not clearly articulated, Global Affairs Canada (GAC) has invested millions of dollars into ARK over the past decade. This funding notably supported the UK-led propaganda campaign in Syria which, according to an internal UK government review reported by the Middle East Eye, may have violated UK laws. This raises the possibility that GAC unwittingly financed an unlawful operation.

Further, documents reviewed by the Guardian in 2016 describe entities that the UK government labelled as “moderate armed opposition.” Among these groups is Jaysh al-Islam, an amalgam of Islamist factions near Damascus, largely financed by Saudi Arabia. Human Rights Watch has pointed to Jaysh al-Islam as the probable abductors of four activists in December 2013, known as the “Douma Four,” presumed to have been killed. Furthermore, Jaysh al-Islam has faced condemnation for circulating a video showing the execution of 18 captured ISIS fighters, a war crime under the Geneva Convention. Additionally, there have been reports of Jaysh al-Islam’s former leader, the deceased Zahran Alloush’s forces displaying al-Qaeda’s black flag.

In effect, Canadian funding may have not only supported an unlawful initiative but also helped to bolster the image of groups with potential terrorist ties in order to topple Assad’s regime. It is not surprising that such characters would be portrayed as “moderate,” considering that Syria’s new Western-backed leader — Ahmed al-Sharaa, aka Mohammed al-Jolani — is, in fact, the founding leader of al-Qaeda in Syria.

GAC disclosed to me that its involvement with ARK in Syria was not direct but limited to financial support. The department declined to disclose specifics about the funding agreements but confirmed contributions exceeding $7 million in the last decade. GAC also remained silent on the document leaks, citing security concerns.

Despite GAC’s reticence, the leaked documents unmistakably show that with Canada’s assistance, ARK’s engineered narrative significantly influenced the portrayal of the Syrian conflict in major Western news outlets. ARK served as a funded intermediary between the UK government and the media, implicating Canadian taxpayers in the support of this endeavour. Compromised outlets include the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, Al Jazeera, and the BBC, as well as many Arabic language outlets, as shown in the leaks.

The UK connection

Understanding ARK’s alignment with Western, particularly British, interests becomes clearer upon examining the background of its CEO, Alistair Harris, and his associates.

Harris, born in 1973, was involved with the UK Foreign Office as a “diplomat” between 1996 and 2002, serving in the Balkans, Central Europe, and Pakistan, according to various public profiles, including LinkedIn. He then went on to work in several government positions, including a two-year stint as a war crimes investigator for the UK government and the UN International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia.

Notably, Harris’s ARK biography omits his diplomatic career, instead highlighting his two decades spent “working in conflict zones from Northern Ireland and the Balkans to Afghanistan, the West Bank, and Lebanon.” The mention of Northern Ireland is noteworthy given its status as part of the UK, which typically would not station a diplomat within its own territories, suggesting a potential non-diplomatic role during his time there. What that role would have entailed remains unclear. Harris could not be reached for comment.

Previously, The Cradle referred to Harris as a “veteran MI6 operative,” but I could not confirm this. In 2019, however, Harris founded a “motion picture production” company called Hotch Potch Entertainment; another founder was Simon Wilson, who appeared in a Cryptome list of MI6 officers published in 1999. The British government tried unsuccessfully to prevent the list from being published online.

A few years later, in 2004, the outing of MI6 agents in the Balkans by journalists from Croatia, Serbia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina led to a withdrawal of operatives and further illuminated the West’s secretive role in NATO’s efforts to destabilize and break up former Yugoslavia — a strategy seen as a model for strategies in Syria and beyond.

As previously mentioned, Harris was working for the UK foreign office from 1996-2002, and his postings included the Balkans. He then went on to “conduct war crimes investigations throughout the Former Yugoslavia,” as per his LinkedIn.

Piecing together Harris’s career and network reveals a figure repeatedly positioned to advance UK foreign policy objectives. He operates in close proximity to British intelligence circles, though without formal acknowledgement on the public record.

Harris and the White Helmets

ARK, standing for Analysis, Research, and Knowledge, was established by Harris in Lebanon in 2009 with the mission to “bridge the gap between the aspirations of local communities and the priorities of governmental and multilateral actors.”

With the onset of the Arab Spring in late 2010, the Middle East was engulfed in protests. The ensuing turmoil, whether fuelled by genuine domestic discontent, external instigations, or both, presented an opportune moment for hawks scoping the region.

Amid the charged atmosphere, in 2011, Harris registered ARK FZC in Dubai and welcomed James Le Mesurier, a former British Military Officer with UN experience in the former Yugoslavia, as a director. Le Mesurier, who later founded the White Helmets with the support of ARK in 2013, brought this self-described volunteer organization into the spotlight. Following bombardments, the White Helmets were known to rush into the rubble to search for victims. Officially called the Syria Civil Defence, the White Helmets were nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize in 2016 and were the subject of a Netflix documentary, which further propelled the organization into international fame, consequently increasing international support and funding.

However, less known is the pivotal role Harris played in catapulting the White Helmets to global prominence. Under Le Mesurier’s guidance and with ARK’s support, the White Helmets became a symbol of the “moderate opposition” in Syria. Le Mesurier then founded the Mayday Rescue Foundation in 2014, which became the main financial conduit for the White Helmets, closely coordinated with Harris’s ARK, which continued running the White Helmets’ social media accounts. Leaked documents reveal ARK’s pride in elevating the White Helmets to international acclaim, which included “high profile recognition from international websites and commentators.”

But, as mentioned, ARK’s involvement in Syria extended beyond support for the White Helmets. It encompassed a broad campaign of psychological operations funded largely by the UK but also by Canada, among others. These efforts aimed at weakening Assad’s regime by creating and circulating pro-opposition narratives globally, framing controversial armed factions as the “moderate opposition” and significantly shaping international perceptions through a carefully crafted narrative, with the White Helmets at the forefront of this campaign.

Its efforts proved fruitful. Alongside the substantial funds allocated to ARK, Global Affairs Canada also provided more than $8.7 million to the White Helmets through Le Mesurier’s Mayday Rescue in 2017 and 2018. This brings GAC funding to more than $16 million between ARK and Mayday.

The multi-million-dollar subsidies from European governments, Canada, and also Qatar all went to Mayday’s bank accounts in Amsterdam.

And then came the financial concerns.

In 2018, amid growing concerns about financial transparency, European countries increased their oversight of the foundation, and the Netherlands’ Ministry of Foreign Affairs discontinued its backing of Mayday Rescue due to a “problematic” payment system and transparency concerns, fearing funds might be diverted to extremist groups in Syria. The evaluation by an IOB team highlighted insufficient mechanisms for monitoring fund recipients and detecting terrorist infiltration, noting a significant lack of systematic oversight.

Individuals within the White Helmets have faced allegations of involvement in organ trafficking, torture, homicide, theft, and cooperating with oppressive militant factions. They’ve also been accused of compromising investigations carried out in Syria by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. The purveyors of these allegations, however, have routinely been dismissed as propagandists and “Assad apologists.”

Missing funds, backdated receipts, and family loans

In late 2018, while purportedly facilitating the evacuation of White Helmet volunteers from Syria, Le Mesurier withdrew US$50,000 from Mayday’s safe in Istanbul, which then went missing. This would become the focal point of several media reports. Le Mesurier reportedly instructed his office to offset the remainder of unspent money against his salary and a Mayday employee backdated receipts, supposedly accounting for what was spent.

Further, a Dutch auditor reportedly found cash book entries labelled “James for wedding” and “loan to Emma,” possibly a reference to Le Mesurier’s then-wife, Emma Winberg, who was also a foundation director and former UK diplomat. Winberg’s work for Mayday also raised concern over a potential conflict of interest.

Also, one of Le Mesurier’s ex-wives, Sarah Tosh, worked for ARK for at least four years as a Programme Director, further highlighting the intricate web of relationships underpinning these operations. Tosh, in her capacity at ARK, aimed to prop up opposition forces and shape media narratives aligning with the UK’s vision for Syria, according to the leaks, which further noted that Tosh would work with the UK to “further” Canadian resources.

More on Tosh later.

Now, back to the missing funds.

While Le Mesurier took responsibility for the vanished US$50,000 intended for the White Helmets, he also raised additional concerns: the former British intelligence officer noted very high salaries, cash bonuses, and unpaid taxes, according to Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant.

Despite appearing to come clean, Mayday’s fate had been sealed, and a very talkative Le Mesurier offered his resignation over the scandal. Two days later, on November 11, 2019, he was found dead on the streets of Istanbul at 4:30 a.m. local time. He reportedly fell from his balcony. His wife said they had retired to bed around 4 a.m. after taking sleeping pills, and Turkish authorities concluded the death was a suicide.

​Immediately after Le Mesurier’s death, European donor countries commissioned UK-headquartered accounting firm Grant Thornton to conduct a forensic inquiry into Mayday’s financial activities, which eventually concluded it found “no evidence of misappropriation of funds.”

Yes, you read that right: “no evidence of misappropriation of funds.”

The accounting firm’s conclusion likely provided welcome words for the officials at Global Affairs Canada who signed off on the more than $8.7 million to Mayday in 2017 and 2018 alone.

As for Le Mesurier, three days before his death, the spokesperson of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs accused him of being a “former agent of Britain’s MI6.” This was promptly laughed off by Western media. The Russian official provided no concrete evidence to support the claim.

Similarly, The Guardian previously stated that Les Mesurier was a former MI5 officer, but walked the claim back shortly after making it, noting that he only held a military intelligence post in the Balkans in 1999.

Harris, meanwhile, kept coasting. Despite ARK’s involvement in the White Helmets’ popularity and resulting funding, Harris — who’s masterfully avoided mainstream controversy for decades — likely knew to maintain an arm’s length from Mayday, at least on the books. Besides, his multi-government-funded gravy train wasn’t set to slow down any time soon. GAC told me it provided ARK more than $6 million over the 2021-22 and 2023-24 fiscal years.

Influencing ‘attitudinal and behavioural changes’

Sarah Tosh, ARK Programme Director and James Le Mesurier’s former wife played a role in channeling Canadian funds into Syria. She oversaw ARK’s network of “stringers,” aiming to amplify the moderate opposition, dismantle regime narratives, and elevate media activists aligned with the UK’s vision for Syria. In the leaked documents ARK states that such campaigns have “demonstrably resulted in both attitudinal and behavioural changes.”

ARK’s influence extended to a plethora of media outlets, including radio stations and magazines with a focus on women’s issues. Highlighting the strategic use of its media network, ARK emphasized the importance of “communications surges” during key moments, like International Women’s Day. Their goal was to enhance the Syrian opposition’s image and challenge the Assad regime’s credibility. This effort aimed to reshape perceptions of opposition groups as forward-thinking and inclusive, essentially framing the conflict in a binary of good versus evil, with the inclusive and moderate opposition forces leading the good fight. ARK also boasted of supplying such content, both branded and unbranded, to major networks like Al Jazeera and the BBC.

ARK terms this “gender programming.”

While a portion of Canadian funding was directed toward gender programming, Canada also aimed to fund more tangible initiatives, like improving street lighting in opposition-held areas to presumably enhance women’s safety.

For example, GAC allocated more than $1 million in 2015-2016 for “combating sexual and gender-based violence in Syria.” A program report provided to Coastal Front (for which I initially reported this) through an Access to Information and Privacy Request disclosed that US$270,000 was spent on installing just six street lights in Atmeh, consuming nearly a third of the program’s budget.

GAC made no effort to verify whether or not all of the street lights — at US$45,000 a piece — went up and stayed up. As mentioned, GAC had no staff on the ground in Syria. The department reiterated, however, that it trusts ARK’s financial competence.

GAC’s approach to supporting women’s safety abroad appears to boil down to pouring money into a void and calling it a day.

ARK’s ‘sister company’ gets its fill too

In a 2019 LinkedIn update, Harris highlighted what he called ARK’s “sister company,” The Stabilisation Network DMCC, which focuses on “research and programming to promote social cohesion and prevent and counter violent extremism around the world.” This organization, by its own description, mirrors the objectives of ARK.

Also located in the UAE, The Stabilisation Network was referred to by Harris as a sibling entity to ARK, yet documentation from the UK’s Companies House from 2018 identifies The Stabilisation Network as a subsidiary of ARK. Harris is the CEO of both.

Sure enough, GAC gave The Stabilisation Network more than $13 million from 2017-2019.

Effectively, The Stabilisation Network served as another conduit for Harris to secure millions from Canadian coffers.

Cumulatively, Harris has siphoned more than $30 million out of Global Affairs Canada’s pocket, with over $20 million funding his ventures — ARK and The Stabilisation Network — and laying the foundation that led to Mayday Rescue’s financial support.

Despite operating under similar aims, Harris maintained a public distance from Mayday.

Cavernous accountability gap

Because much of the West shared a common enemy with al-Qaeda in Syria leading up to Assad’s ousting, this meant looking past the atrocities carried out under the watch of Syria’s new leader. Remember, al-Jolani founded and led al-Qaeda in Syria. No amount of PR will change that.

And since al-Jolani assumed control, government forces have engaged in sectarian violence targeting Syria’s minority communities. In March, massacres in the coastal regions resulted in hundreds — possibly thousands — of Alawite civilians being killed. Then in July, hundreds more people, mostly Druze civilians, were killed in the Suweida region. This is the culmination of years of Western-backed campaigns, funded indirectly and in part by Canadians.