Public Safety Committee on June 3rd, 2024

[Mehmet Tohti]

Thank you.

Yes, as I said, since 1998 I have been living in Canada. I'm totally isolated from my family members. I didn't have any chance to visit my mother and all of my siblings. For them, they didn't have any chance to come to Canada and visit me because the Chinese government has blocked their passport applications. For more than 33 years it is total isolation; I'm alone here in Canada with my own family.

As I said, Chinese repression did not stop within its borders. Wherever we do advocacy work in Canada or some other places, the extended arms of Chinese authorities always hunt us. Just a couple of hours before testifying before the committee on China's genocidal policy, I received a very ugly message about my mother. Then just two weeks before the parliamentary vote on M-62 for resettlement of 10,000 Uyghur refugees, I received a direct call from the Chinese state police. They put my uncle on the other end of the phone and threatened me. They said a number of my family members were already dead and if I continued I would face the consequence. It was that kind of death threat.

Last year again, before I headed to one conference, two cars chased me. It was a warning from Canadian officials at Global Affairs that saved our lives, because we then changed our route. This threat is imminent every day, and this bill in that regard just provides one tool to combat those foreign actors.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you for sharing what you have gone through.

In one of the recent interviews in The Hill Times, you mentioned that, most importantly, the legislation clearly defines foreign interference in the Criminal Code.

Can you please speak to why this Criminal Code amendment is so important?

[Mehmet Tohti]

It means that, in our legislation or in our bill, there is a name for it. There is a penalty for it, and there are consequences for foreign interference. For that reason, it is important.

Unless we define it, unless we criminalize it, unless we put certain sanctions on certain offenses, we cannot do anything. For example, there should be some provisions in our law for bullying, intimidation or harassment, but there is no clear definition, especially when it comes to foreign interference. Our law enforcement agencies are helpless. With this law, there is a clear definition, and there is criminalization of that offence, so that at least it gives a tool for our law enforcement to act upon.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

How important is it that we pass this legislation as quickly as possible to ensure its full implementation prior to the next election next year?

[Mehmet Tohti]

It is extremely important, and it should be passed immediately because a lot of discussions have taken place on the importance of this bill, and we already have experience from neighbouring countries and allies, and they had a great deal of experience. For that reason, this was a loophole in Canada. We are trying to close it down.

It is important that all political parties set aside their differences, focus on this bill, pass it as soon as possible and try to make it better down the road, because every five years we will have a chance to review it.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mrs Zahid.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Villemure, you have two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Tohti, you spoke earlier about the commissioner's independence. When we look at the bill as a whole, apart from that independence, what would give you faith in the process? What would it take to reassure you?

[Mehmet Tohti]

Implementation is the key. The bill is important. For example, we signed the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement on trade. In that bill, the USMCA, there is a provision to ban forced labour production from entering North America.

The United States has acted on that part of the agreement, but Canada has not. That's the reason we are not intercepting or seizing any shipments full of products made with the use of forced labour. Meanwhile, the United States is confiscating thousands of them.

Implementation is key. How can we implement it? We have to strengthen the organization and law enforcement with resources. Resources mean human resources, intelligence and other resources, whatever they need. Unless we equip our organization or entity with a stronger ability and capacity to implement this legislation, again, this bill will be on the shelf.

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

While the United States is prosecuting people for the offences you mentioned, here we are still trying to establish a law.

Is Bill C-70 sufficient? Is there anything missing?

[Mehmet Tohti]

Our organization has advocated for passage of the transnational repression policy act. It is the gold standard of bills, and we don't have that gold standard, so whatever we have, if it is even silver standard, it is better than nothing.

At least we will have a chance to review what is working and what is not and amend it and improve it once every five years. For that reason, I'm optimistic and, for many Canadians, including our parliamentarians, foreign interference and transnational repression are quite new terminologies.

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

Any tools you can provide to get us to the gold standard would be welcome.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Villemure.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll ask for an answer from all three of the witnesses. In this bill, the main purpose, of course, is to have transparency and to raise public awareness of just how foreign influence by foreign principals work to influence certain processes here in this country.

One thing other witnesses have noted is that it is country-agnostic because it might also be a good thing for the Canadian public to be aware of how our allies are influencing us, which of course happens. We have close friendships with many countries, but it's no secret, particularly with the United States, that they have sometimes tried to influence how Canada adopts certain policies. That's a historical fact. Other bills have addressed this by drawing up a schedule or list, which would be influenced by reports from CSIS or NSICOP, but still subject to the Governor in Council adding certain countries.

From each of you, what is your preference? Are you happy with this being country-agnostic, or would you like to see that certain countries be more of a focus than others? I would like to hear very quickly from all three of you, please.

[Mehmet Tohti]

Certain countries should be focused on more than others because certain countries have a mission, and they have a specific capacity with the resources to focus on Canada just to maximize their economic, diplomatic or other interests. For that reason, we have to focus on certain countries more than others.

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

Mr. Therchin, what are your thoughts?

[Sherap Therchin]

I would echo Mehmet's point on this. I think the capacity that China has to engage in a level of interference calls for a separate focus on China. In that regard, I would certainly put China in the overarching focus of foreign interference just because of their capacity.

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

Mr. Singh, please go ahead.

[Balpreet Singh]

I'm going to have to take a different approach from my friends. I think it has to be agnostic, because who's going to set the countries? We've already seen, for example, in the foreign interference inquiry, that the countries named were China, Russia and Iran, and, in the proceedings, we found out that India is actually by far the second-largest foreign interferer in Canada, and yet it was left out to further our international relations with it. This cannot be the way we approach foreign interference. Like I said, our community has been subjected to foreign interference for 40 years unabated because Canada didn't want to mess up relations with India. It can't be the government that sets these lists; it has to be agnostic.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.

That brings this panel to a close. Before we suspend for the next panel, members of the committee, the clerk distributed on Friday, May 31 a project budget for Bill C-70 in the amount of $53,250. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt this budget?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

That is done. Thank you.

Gentlemen, to all of our witnesses, thank you all for being here today. Your interventions have been most helpful.

With that, we will suspend and bring in the next panel. Thank you all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting back to order.

Welcome to our witnesses for the third hour—although it's been longer than that. We have, as an individual, Michel Juneau-Katsuya, former chief of the Asia-Pacific desk, Canadian Security Intelligence Service; from the Centre of International Governance Innovation we have Aaron Shull, managing director and general counsel; and from the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group we have Tim McSorley, national coordinator.

Mr. MacGregor, go ahead on a point of order.