Evidence of meeting #109 for Public Safety and National Security in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was registry.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:45 a.m.
Director General, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Sébastien, I don't know if you want to answer first.
9:45 a.m.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, National and Cyber Security, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Thank you.
I just want to say that I sort of disagree with your premise. I think this bill, FITAA, doesn't leave a whole lot to regulations. A lot is in the statutes. The regulatory framework will be quite contained, compared to other pieces of legislation.
In terms of the process, go ahead, Richard.
9:45 a.m.
Director General, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Thank you.
Some of them are simpler than others—determining the amount of penalties that corporations or individuals might have to pay in terms of an administrative monetary penalty. Sometimes there's a differentiation in regime. That's fairly straightforward.
To answer your question about consultation, some of them might require consultation more than others. Some of them are very technical. For example, if we were to consider adding classes of exemptions or another exemption to the regime, you can imagine that it would require consultation.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
The bottom line is that you would anticipate that there would be some sort of consultation process that could potentially take some time, because certain aspects of it may be more complex than others.
9:45 a.m.
Director General, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
It is possible that there will be some consultation activities on some regulations.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
I think this just underscores that we have more delay, and it underscores why time is of the essence. It underscores that we should never have been here. The reason we are here is that this government failed to act and failed to move forward with establishing a foreign influence registry a year after the consultation process ended. Only now are we beginning to study a bill that as of yesterday had the first day of debate at the second reading stage.
I'll move on to the foreign influence registry provisions, and specifically the definition of “public office holders”. I note that, for instance, appointees of the federal cabinet constitute a public office holder, but provincial cabinet appointees, or appointees of provincial cabinets, are not included. Similarly, officers, directors and employees of federal boards, commissions and tribunals constitute a public office holder, but the same would not seem to apply with respect to directors or employees of provincial or municipal government corporations or agencies.
Why were those left out?
9:50 a.m.
Director General, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I would point out that the legislation provides that it would apply to provincial-territorial governments when it is brought into force. It's the same thing with indigenous governments. It would apply to them when it is brought into force.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
I understand that. It applies to federal government as well, but I cited two specific sections in terms of what constitutes public office holders. There appears to be a gap there. I want clarity as to whether or not I'm correct in that interpretation. If I am, why were those left out?
9:50 a.m.
Director General, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I'd have to go back and look at the language of the provisions. I would say that the legislation allows, through the regulation, adding classes of people. If we became aware that a class of people needed to be captured, it could be done through that.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
—appointees of the federal cabinet but not appointees of provincial governments....
9:50 a.m.
Director General, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Definitely, that would be part of the conversation. The reason we brought the provincial and territorial components into force separately was to ensure collaboration in considering that with our provincial and territorial colleagues, so that we could do it in an orderly way. That can be part of those conversations. I'm not saying it won't be. I'm just saying that right now we're not there.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Cooper. That's enough.
We go now to Mr. Arya for five minutes, please.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My question is generally to all three witnesses in all three departments.
I know you mentioned that the foreign interference laws passed by our allies, the Five Eyes, including Australia, have been looked into. Are you guys aware of the first case in Australia that was tried, which was reported by The New York Times on March 16 of this year?
We can start with CSIS.
9:50 a.m.
Director General, Academic Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
We are aware of that article, yes.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON
You are aware of that article.
I'll just mention what The New York Times said. It's not me, but what the article said. It said, “The first case tried under Australia's foreign interference laws has raised tough questions about the breadth of the regulations.”
I'll just quote some sentences from the article, and I would like to know from you guys if that is what can happen here in Canada under this new law.
The fundamental thing about that case is that:
The police officers asked the man what he meant when he said that involving an Australian government minister in a charity event could benefit “us Chinese” [within the courts]. Was he talking about mainland China and the Chinese Communist Party, or the local Australian Chinese community?
Depending on the judge, the jury or the government officials, whether, when he says “us Chinese”, he means the Chinese government or the Chinese diaspora, depending on the answer, yes or no, he could face 10 years in prison.
This event is about “a $25,000 donation to a community hospital”, which, according to prosecutors, “would at some point have become the basis for a pro-China pitch to a local member of Parliament.”
My question is this: Do you think it is possible that this case can happen in Canada under this proposed law?
9:55 a.m.
Director General, Policy and Foreign Relations, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
One of the discussions around this, of course, is the very grey nature of foreign interference and making those connections. What is included in this bill is a package of measures that together seek to provide transparency around foreign interference activity and help us—
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON
I'm sorry, but my time is limited. Maybe I can ask the Department of Justice.
9:55 a.m.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, National and Cyber Security, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I don't have the details of the case specifically, but what I can say is that if there's an arrangement being made within the foreign principal and someone in Canada—
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON
Please look up the case and get back to the committee with an answer.
9:55 a.m.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, National and Cyber Security, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Sure, absolutely.
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON
I'll ask the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.