There's an old problem Canada's new foreign-interference law won't fix - When it comes to using intelligence to prosecute crimes, U.S. and Canada are a world apart

This is the best summary I could come up with:

There's a striking example on Page 29: An Indian proxy allegedly claimed to have repeatedly transferred funds from India to Canadian politicians at all levels of government in exchange for political favours, like promoting certain issues in Parliament.

While parts of the legislation might prove useful, Ward Elcock and Richard Fadden both told CBC News, attempts to prosecute will keep bumping into unresolved constitutional challenges.

Meanwhile in Canada, a multi-year inquiry found the RCMP had engaged in inexcusable and illegal behaviour while conducting intelligence work: burning a barn, opening mail, breaking-and-entering and stealing a political party's member data.

An inquiry into the attacks found that foreign-focused intelligence agencies and the domestic-focused FBI communicated poorly, and subsequent reforms not only further integrated their work, but made it easier to get a surveillance warrant.

Collusion is defined as someone engaging in deceptive conduct, at the direction of a foreign government, to influence a Canadian political process like legislation, a party nomination or an election platform.

He retains hope politicians might yet write a law that achieves two contradictory goals: letting defendants access intelligence as per their constitutional right, while keeping the details secret.

The original article contains 1,445 words, the summary contains 175 words. Saved 88%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!