Public Safety Committee on May 30th, 2024

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Could Public Safety Canada answer?

[Sébastien Aubertin-Giguère]

On the creation of the registry, we've consulted very closely with the U.S., Australia, and the U.K. The U.K. just introduced the new registry, and we've learned a lot from it. Also, the U.K. and Australia have significantly revamped their national security legislation in recent years, the U.K. most recently. We've taken a close look and we had good collaboration with them on shaping our legislative package.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you so much.

To stick with Public Safety Canada, did you consult with indigenous, provincial and territorial governments? If so, what feedback did you receive during the consultation process?

[Sébastien Aubertin-Giguère]

We did. We have engaged with national intelligence organizations and also rights holders across Canada.

Overall, we've received very positive feedback. The registry is a tool that they will be using for the conduct of their activities as governments. We're looking to this tool as a very positive step in the right direction.

Some concerns were presented by some of the stakeholders around application and respecting of the rights of these governments. Obviously the bill has been designed in that context to protect these rights and to support their operations as governments.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Bittle.

Mr. Villemure, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Aubertin‑Giguère and Mr. Bilodeau, I know that some choices will be made by regulation. However, when you wrote the work of poetry that is Bill C‑70, you must have had in mind a certain skill set for choosing the person who would become the transparency commissioner.

Can you comment on the experience and expertise the commissioner should have?

[Richard Bilodeau]

Thank you for your question.

Ultimately, after consultation, the Governor in Council will choose the person who becomes the transparency commissioner. That's what's provided for in the bill. Then it will be up to the authorities to decide on the experience and skills that person should have. That will be provided for in the proposed foreign influence transparency and accountability act.

There is no prescribed set of requirements for the role. It's not one of the regulations that's being considered. I don't have in-depth knowledge of how it works, but I do know that there is a fairly well-established process for selecting these types of commissioners.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I still think a transparency commissioner needs to satisfy a specific set of job requirements. You would never consider hiring a poet, a plumber or an electrician. I am not forcing you to give me an answer, but can you give me an idea of the type of people being looked at, based on commissioners who perform other duties?

[Richard Bilodeau]

Thank you for your question.

It's really not up to me or my colleagues to make that decision, but you can still look at the job requirements for other types of commissioners who hold similar positions. That might give you an idea of what kinds of skills and experience are being sought.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you.

I would like to make a suggestion. The other commissioners are often judges or former judges. I would just like to submit that judges are excellent candidates for commissioner positions, but they are not the only possible candidates. People with other types of experience and expertise could certainly be considered.

I would like you to take that into account in future discussions you might have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Witnesses may answer quickly.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Can they, with two and a half minutes?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

The time is up.

[A voice]

I'll provide it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Maybe I'm confused. I thought you asked a question. I'm sorry. I may have zoned out there. I apologize.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We go now to Mr. MacGregor for two and a half minutes.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a very quick technical question for Public Safety Canada on part 4 of the bill, on section 4 of the proposed foreign influence transparency and accountability act, where it's talking about the application of the act.

You mentioned the “federal political or governmental processes” and the “provincial or territorial” ones. Are municipal and regional governments not mentioned because they're creatures of the provinces and we can assume they are covered by this? I just want to make sure that we're not leaving anything out.

[Richard Bilodeau]

That's correct.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Okay. Thank you very much.

My next question is for CSIS.

I know you've already discussed the dataset regime. I read the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency's report on the CSIS dataset regime, and I think it's safe to say that the report was pretty scathing. In multiple instances NSIRA is finding that “CSIS did not comply with the...provisions of the CSIS Act”. It's just littered right throughout their report.

We were talking at the second-reading debate of this bill yesterday about bringing what essentially is an analog law into the digital realm, and I understand that the complexities of data these days warrant an upgrade to the act. However, can you see that from my point of view as a legislator, if CSIS has been unable to comply with an existing statutory framework, I might have some hesitancy or questions going forward in updating the act? I guess we're looking for an assurance from CSIS that if we're going to give you these new provisions, we're not going to see a future NSIRA report like this.

[Sarah Estabrooks]

Thank you for the question.

Certainly one of the principal objectives of the amendments is to provide a very clear, transparent law when it comes to datasets to maintain the safeguards that are in place and also to ensure that it can be implemented lawfully and appropriately. Currently, the complexity of the regime—as you said, and I think I've written that line before about the analog nature of the law when it comes to very complex, messy, unorganized data—is an extremely challenging space. Many of the amendments seek to provide clarity, reduce duplication in process, and, as I mentioned already, allow for a single application for a mixed dataset, which would take it to the Federal Court for approval rather than having to parse data and take two parallel tracks and risk that there is undetected data in one half of that dataset, etc. A great deal of the amendments will in fact achieve the objective of ensuring clear and straightforward law that can be carefully adhered to.

Absolutely, it is a challenging space. We've seen from our U.K. partners that they've also dealt with certain challenges in implementing their new law and have already amended it as well. It is novel legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.

We go now to Mr. Genuis for five minutes, please.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Winston Churchill apparently once quipped, “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing, only after they’ve tried everything else.” In this case, the Liberal government has definitely tried everything else to avoid action on foreign interference over nine years. With Bill C-70, they've finally responded to pressure from the opposition and from the public. Conservatives don't want to let the government get away with sitting on this bill. After nine years, we've had enough delays. We will push for anti-interference measures to be passed and in place as soon as possible.

One important flashpoint for the foreign interference conversation is Hong Kong. Hong Kong's national security law makes absurd claims of universal jurisdiction, even claiming that if a Canadian in Canada makes statements that are deemed to violate Hong Kong's national security law, they could be charged and even rendered to Hong Kong while travelling in a third country. The manager of the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office in London has been charged with spying. I've heard concerns from the Canadian Hong Kong community about the activities of the ETO in Canada. Hong Kong is no longer meaningfully separate from the mainland, which raises questions about whether these offices have any legitimacy anyway.

Is the government reviewing the activities of the ETO as they relate to foreign interference?

[Sébastien Aubertin-Giguère]

Mr. Chair, this question would be better addressed by Global Affairs Canada.