Evidence of meeting #110 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 csis.
A video is available from Parliament.
Associate Professor, Criminology, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I would just add that I think the main value of a registrar's office that provides, basically, a map of the agencies or networks involved in legitimate influence is that it provides CSIS, police and other investigative bodies with a starting point for some of the darker networks that might be beneath that map. In many cases, it's a starting point for an investigation or intelligence gathering, whereby they have some idea of whom they could at least start asking questions of to seek information.
Bloc
Associate Professor, Criminology, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
No, not for their clandestine purposes, but what I'm saying is that perhaps some other body, such as a university office or other that had been in any way related to the exchange of laboratory information between Canada and China, would have been an agency that CSIS, or a police organization, could have asked questions of to get started on an investigation earlier.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
All right.
Earlier, you mentioned that the act should be reviewed every five years. The Privacy Act and the Consumer Privacy Protection Act contain such obligations, but they haven't been reviewed since 1983 or 1984.
How can we be sure that this review will in fact be carried out?
Associate Professor, Criminology, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Again, I don't think that can be specified in legislation. I simply think it's for the development of protocols through basically getting started and keeping track of best practices that we can formalize in the working manuals of those organizations over time.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, gentlemen.
We'll go now to Mr. MacGregor.
In my defence, I used to work for a fellow named McAllister.
You have two and a half minutes, please.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Maybe I'll have a pseudonym one day as Gregor McAllister, and that would confuse everyone.
Professor Kempa, when I was reading through this bill, everything seemed to flow and make sense in terms of the title of the bill and what it is aiming to do. The one section, though, that seems to stick out to me as being in an odd place to fit it in is the amendments to the Criminal Code. I'm talking specifically about clause 60 and clause 61. There's an update to the “Sabotage” section of the Criminal Code. I note that the government, in drafting this bill, did insert two sections where, for greater certainty, it's not an offence if it's “advocacy, protest or dissent”.
I'm just wondering if, in your review of these amendments to the Criminal Cod, you have any opinions on them. Are you satisfied that they are in good order?
Associate Professor, Criminology, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Of course, the main concern there is that some way or another those powers could be used to somehow police or lay charges for legitimate domestic protests. It's disruptive to essential infrastructure, basically. I would think that the provision that the protest must be significantly driven or influenced by or caused by foreign interference is the safety valve mechanism there. I do find that perhaps that language could be accentuated—that the action against essential infrastructure must be motivated by serving a foreign entity.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Thank you.
Very quickly, you've heard my concerns with the definition of “arrangement” in part 4 of this bill, the new foreign influence transparency and accountability act. Just in terms of “association”, do you have any thoughts on that term, “in association”? Is it quite clear to you, or do you think this committee needs to do work on that?
Associate Professor, Criminology, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
That is one term where I think there's a need for work. It's very broad, and most of the civil liberties critiques have focused in on that precise terminology.
Liberal
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Thanks very much, and thank you to our witnesses. I appreciate the insight.
I'll start with Mr. Burton and then go to Professor Kempa.
You talked about that tension that needs to exist because somebody holding views is not necessarily the problem, but it's when it's a foreign state and there's influence in that process. I'm just wondering how we square that circle, so to speak, to make sure that we can in fact have a framework that ensures that we are protecting our democratic infrastructure, research infrastructure, etc., while also protecting the freedoms and rights of Canadians. There's a tension there, and we have to make sure that we get it right. I'd ask for your feedback and whether you have any specific suggestions about what that should look like in terms of the context of this bill, especially because there's such a tight deadline for amendments.
I'll start with Mr. Burton.
Senior Fellow, Sinopsis, As an Individual
Well, I certainly think it's important that citizens of Canada should be serving the purposes of Canada and shouldn't have some remnant loyalties to a nation that they or their ancestors may have come from.
I do think it's incumbent on us to have much more transparency in these matters.
With the Winnipeg lab matter, I suppose the issue was that Professor Qiu was receiving benefits from China through these thousand talents programs and other arrangements with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which she was not open about.
In terms of the issue with Kenny Chiu, for example, I think the main problem was that we couldn't find out where the information on WeChat and other Chinese websites was coming from. Was it domestic political preference, or was it something coming out of Beijing? We couldn't get any transparency on the sources. All of the stuff was under pen names and on websites that we couldn't associate with any existing institution, which of course by itself is suspicious. I do think that we just have to know.
Also, of course, we haven't talked about this, but the point of this legislation is not to prevent people from taking benefits from a foreign state, but for them to be transparent about it. That would be a choice of Canadians. I receive funding from different foreign governments that have engaged my consulting services. I am only too happy, if called upon, to make that publicly known.
Conservative
Associate Professor, Criminology, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
A quick addition would be about the constant emphasis of the term “clandestine” in the legislation, so that it's not the issue of influence at all. A Canadian citizen is democratically permitted to overtly promote the interests of another state. It's the clandestine piece and the disclosure of any interest.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
There's a comparison made with the ethics act. I hear from my constituents often, and they are frustrated. I also sit on the ethics committee, and this issue has touched it. There's that transparency piece that is so essential to make sure that Canadians know about it. Then, at least if Canadians know about it, they can make decisions accordingly.
What should that mechanism be in terms of transparency? Should there be bulletins, or is it enough to be on a list? Is it enough to make sure there's this coordination between different levels of law enforcement? What's the right level of transparency? Does there need to be more, or does what's proposed in the legislation go far enough?
I have one more quick question if we have time.
Senior Fellow, Sinopsis, As an Individual
I think the legislation is good. As I said before, I think it's really the regulations that are going to be the key here. There are still a lot of things that haven't been fully explained, including, as you said, how we define those terms and whether we shouldn't have terms that are very clear in these things.
My own feeling with regard to receiving benefits from abroad is that there shouldn't be any privacy allowed and that you have to be completely forthcoming about any conflicts of interest because of foreign money. I think that if people feel that violates their privacy, it's easy: Don't take any foreign money and then you won't have to talk about it.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
That's great.
Do you have anything to add, Mr. Kempa?
Associate Professor, Criminology, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Annual reporting on the part of the registrar's office, which would be picked up on media and whatnot, would be very helpful.
Conservative