That's a good question.
I would say, sir, that, yes, the bill does address those, but when I look at the tragedy of what happened with Mr. Nijjar, I see that more as state assassination, state murder. I mean, I'll be blunt about it.
We can call it transnational repression, but “foreign interference” is used pretty broadly. For a lot of Canadians, when you say “foreign interference”, all sorts of things come to mind. In this case, we're looking at a considerable shift in the operations of a hostile foreign intelligence service, at sovereignty issues with Canada, and, of course, at the murder of a Canadian.
I can't say that the provisions that are going to come in with the legislation would have prevented that, but I would say they would probably mitigate the transnational threat environment, which was allowed to grow, develop, become sophisticated and become conducive to what they did.
That's sort of a half answer. I think the measures are good, but I don't think they would have prevented the tragedy that happened.