Evidence of meeting #112 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 interference.
A video is available from Parliament.
Policy Adviser, Hong Kong Watch
I am also not a lawyer, but I am happy with the bill as it stands, currently.
There are amendments I would suggest, but the bill, currently, as it stands, is better than what we have in our Canadian framework. It is a good first step for this government to take to counter foreign interference.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you very much.
Mr. Fadden, I'll go back to you.
You mentioned Australia earlier. Unless I'm mistaken, Australia was one of the first countries to create a registry. However, there haven't been many prosecutions as a result of the registry. It seems to me that the registry has experienced some minor technical difficulties. Is that true?
As an Individual
Yes, I think it is. I don't know the details, but, if I understand correctly, the Australian authorities' intention was simply to provide an additional tool that could help. They didn't intend to create the potential for a large number of lawsuits or things like that. If I remember correctly, the Australian government tabled two or three other acts or bills that created new criminal offences. However, the intent was mainly to give the Australian authorities greater knowledge of the actors, and not necessarily to assign active police powers.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Ultimately, it was more to register the actors.
Is the registry proposed here better than the Australian one?
As an Individual
I think that at the end of the day, it will largely depend on how it comes into force. As you know, Parliament often prescribes something, and then the coming into force can go one way or the other. I think if the government chooses an active commissioner who really wants to make a big difference, it will be better than what Australia is doing. That could go a long way in addressing this issue.
Bloc
Immediate Past President, Canada-Hong Kong Link
I think the present bill is a strong and good bill. However, because of rapidly evolving foreign influence patterns, it is of utmost importance that our government or the future commission conduct periodic reviews of the act and all corresponding regulations on a regular basis.
We are really competing with time, so we would like to see the bill passed and enacted before the next election is called, in order to protect our national security and democracy.
What I suggest is that you consider reviewing and updating the act and corresponding regulations one to two years after the 2025 election. After that, review the act and regulations once every five years. The rationale for this is that usually, during federal elections, there are very good examples of the patterns, strategies and tactics of foreign interference. What we observe in the next election will give us more data to consider when it comes to improving the act.
Liberal
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to echo my colleagues in thanking all the witnesses for being here today to help us through this study.
I don't think you're going to find anyone around this committee table who doesn't understand the importance of the issue before us. That's why, with respect to Bill C-70.... You know, it is quite rare to see a moment of unanimous consent to get a bill through committee this quickly. That being said, it puts a lot of pressure on us committee members because it is a fairly large and consequential bill. We need to do our thorough review of it because it still has to go through the Senate. Of course, if the Senate finds that we didn't do our job properly, they'll amend it and send it back to us, adding to further delay, so we want to make sure we're doing our job properly here.
Mr. Fadden, I'd like to start with you.
I took note of your comment that putting in a registry is not going to stop the clandestine nature of so much foreign interference. Of course, we have various consequential amendments to the Security of Information Act, otherwise known as SOIA. However, putting a law in place is one thing. Making sure we use that law to prosecute and convict is another. I know there's often quite a wide gulf between what is considered intelligence and what is considered evidence—what would stand up in a court of law.
What we haven't talked about a lot is how there are some pretty consequential amendments to the Canada Evidence Act to set up a framework to safeguard sensitive information. I know CSIS has to, by the very nature of its raison d’être, be quite careful with the intelligence it has, because you don't want to get rid of an intelligence source. At the same time, in addition to its detection and disruption activities, we also want to see some prosecutions and convictions happen.
As you look through this bill, are you satisfied that we have the legislative changes in place that can lead us down that path?
As an Individual
I have two related answers.
I think, on the authority of the commissioner to fine people, the standard of proof there will be less than that of the criminal law. It will make it easier for the commissioner to impose fines than it would be if you're accusing somebody under the Criminal Code or the Evidence Act. On that side, it's a good call. There's still the possibility of judicial review, but the commissioner can simply impose the fines at a reasonable level of proof.
There are other crimes, some of which provide for life imprisonment—which is, to be honest, one of the things that surprised me about the bill. You still have the criminal law level of proof, but I don't know if there's a great deal that can be done without dealing with the old intelligence-to-evidence issue. It's an issue we've tried to resolve for the last 20 years.
Having said that, the appointment of a special counsel and all of these other measures will help. Part of the difficulty is that the rules of discovery in this country are among the broadest in the Commonwealth. When we have issues before the criminal or civil courts, everything becomes available. I'm not sure this is the statute to fix that, but I would urge upon you the view that it is a significant issue and a lot of people have tried to resolve it.
As long as you have the criminal level of proof, I think you've done what you can. Again, I would urge you to look at this more generally in the future.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Thank you for that.
Ms. Fung, I'd like to turn to you.
I want to go back to your opening statement, where you had some recommendations for amendments. I took note of how you were looking at the existing definition in part 4 of “political or governmental process”. You note that it covers, I think, six items, but you want it expanded to include leadership processes, nomination contests and third party advertising.
Could you walk me through that request in a bit more detail to help us understand?
Immediate Past President, Canada-Hong Kong Link
The reason we would like to advocate for an expansion of the definition is that, based on our observations on the ground, foreign interference occurs at every single level of the decision-making process, whether it's within the party or outside the party. For instance, in terms of political party contests, we have witnessed a lot of interference behind the scenes. Of course, many of the proxies are advocates representing foreign countries. They disguise themselves as being a Canadian politician or a Canadian community representative. Even in terms of some of the other appointments, we have seen a lot of unlawful lobbying behind the scenes that involves monetary benefits. Sometimes it can be intangible or in kind.
I would like to provide a broader understanding of where foreign interference could occur. It's really beyond the imagination of most Canadians. However, for people like us who have been observing it on the ground, we have seen a lot more than what is being reported by Canadian media.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.
That brings our first round to a close. We'll start our second round. We will end this round with Mr. MacGregor, once again.
We go now to Mr. Motz for five minutes.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you very much, Chair.
As indicated, thank you to the witnesses for being here today.
I want to start with you, Mr. Fadden.
Does June 2010 ring a bell for you? That's when you first started ringing the alarm bells for this country on foreign interference and how we needed to start taking notice. Do you feel somewhat vindicated?
As an Individual
I guess so, although my intention wasn't to generate quite the excitement that it did. Part of the complication, at the time, was that we were very restricted in what we could say publicly.
I just want to say that I was very careful to say that foreign influence provided some measure of influence. I wasn't arguing that everybody was controlled. However, yes—
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
You're making a statement that you were somewhat confined in what you could say.
Do you think the provisions in this act now give CSIS the powers they need?
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Is there something more that should be added?
As an Individual
The challenge here is going to be for CSIS or whoever to set up a process.
To pick an example, one of your next witnesses is from the Business Council of Canada. CSIS is going to want to have a relationship with the Business Council where they can share classified information. What does that mean in practice? Are they going to have to security clear them? Are they going to have a parallel system?
A lot of it will be in the implementation, but the act itself provides a legislative framework that is pretty good.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Concerns have been raised about the new commissioner. They're appointed by order in council without any parliamentary approval, according to the act. We've heard from witnesses who have some concerns about that. They figure the commissioner should be independent and have a similar role to the Auditor General, for example.
What are your thoughts on that?
As an Individual
I'll repeat what I said to Mr. Villemure.
The proof will be in the pudding. You could have the current appointment process go forward, and there'll be no problems at all. I think the real issue is perception. We have a tradition in this country of having institutions like commissioners being agents of Parliament regarding privacy and access to information. I could go on.
To my mind, since we're dealing with an act that wants to promote accountability, transparency and independence, there would be an advantage to making this individual an agent of Parliament in much the same mode as the Auditor General.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you for that.
Mr. Caputo mentioned something about the country-agnostic approach to the foreign registry. Can you discuss whether you agree or disagree with that approach?
As an Individual
I agree. If you don't have the country-neutral approach, you're going to have to either list the countries in the statute or provide the Governor in Council with the capability of doing that.
Also, if you list them, you're going to—without a shadow of a doubt—significantly affect our relations with those countries. I have a lot of problems with China, but China is there. We have to find a way of dealing with it. Therefore, the neutral approach is much better. It doesn't prevent anybody anywhere from dealing with an issue. On listing specific countries, I'm not the foreign minister, but I think they would tell you that it's not necessary to obtain the objectives of the statute, so don't do it.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Ms. Leung, I have a question about the foreign registry for you.
You indicated previously that the foreign agents registry must encompass activities outside of political or governmental processes. Do you think that, as it stands, it's good enough the way it is? Do you have some recommendations for us that can be added, in order to improve this aspect you're concerned about?