Public Safety Committee on June 5th, 2024

[Katherine Leung]

Thank you for the question.

My view is that this bill is good as it stands, but amendments can be made to make it better. It is better than what we currently have in our Canadian framework.

Much of foreign interference happens at the grassroots level, as I indicated in my opening remarks. For example, if somebody advocating for pro-democracy movements in Hong Kong is intimidated to the point where they don't feel safe doing that anymore—they no longer write to their MP or go to meetings in Parliament—it stops that individual from participating in Canadian democracy with their charter-protected rights. This is something that has—

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Let me ask you a question related to that, to some degree.

I asked Mr. Fadden about CSIS's powers to share information. We agree, I think, that it's necessary. Do you think the act goes far enough for the diaspora community in Canada to receive the information it needs to protect itself against foreign influence?

[Katherine Leung]

I think that will depend on how the act is executed. I still have a lot of questions regarding the kind of information that will be shared and with whom, and whether it will be sufficient for community groups to counter foreign interference.

I think a lot of the problem with foreign interference at the community level is.... It's not that we don't know it's happening. We're very aware of it. A lot of our community members experience it, people at my organization included. I think the information sharing is great. We should know what we're facing and become proactive against it. However, at the end of the day, it is our safety that we hope this act can protect.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Motz.

We go now to Ms. O'Connell for five minutes.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here.

I'll start with you, Ms. Fung.

You mentioned areas where the bill should be expanded to include things like election financing and issues around nominations in leadership races. It's my understanding that this legislation includes the nomination of a political candidate, the holding of an election or referendum, decision-making by public office holders and the proceedings of a legislative body. Certainly, my interpretation of some of the areas we're hearing about is that they would be inclusive of this.

If there's language you think is not making this clear, I'm curious about how we could improve it. When it comes to the financing of campaigns—you mentioned an example of in-kind—that would currently be illegal under the Elections Act if it's not reported. We wouldn't duplicate all of the Election Act financing rules within this law. How can we ensure the language is clear?

I assume that, for example, a leadership race would be included. Where is the language missing that's causing this disconnect?

[Gloria Fung]

In order for the act and regulations to be successfully implemented and achieve their original purpose, it is of utmost importance that they contain a good definition of “foreign interference” in various aspects, so that the general public, as well as the enforcement department, can hold foreign agents accountable based upon this.

At the same time, I think public education is also very important. I can look at the reason why Canada has become one of the most badly infiltrated countries by the CCP. There's hardly any meaningful sharing of information from CSIS or the RCMP regarding how Canadians in the general public can protect themselves when certain circumstances happen to them, or how they can report this effectively in a timely manner to the concerned department so that the enforcement department can follow up on it.

It really takes two-way communication to get this act and the regulations effectively implemented.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you. I'm sorry. I have limited time and I'm trying to get questions out to all of the witnesses.

Mr. Fadden, you spoke earlier about the speed at which you hope we move on this, the improvements, and how no piece of legislation is perfect. I acknowledge that. There is also the suggestion about the independence of the commission and having it as a stand-alone, separate body. In your experience, that in itself would take additional time—having that body set up. Frankly, the space and infrastructure that would be needed in such a sensitive role.... That's not to say that, in the future, this might not be the route of Parliament.

Do you see a concern around speed and how setting up an independent body or commissioner could create challenges versus using some of the infrastructure Public Safety might already be able to build on and support?

[Richard Fadden]

I think it will complicate things slightly.

Having said that, if you treat the new commissioner as an agent of Parliament.... What I think the Privy Council Office usually does is treat them like a commission of inquiry initially and develop a structure around them. As I said to your colleagues, I think it would be desirable, but I don't think it's necessary.

If the commissioner finds that, after 18 months or two years, it's not working, I would very much hope you would be willing to consider changes.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Ms. Leung, if I have a bit of time, I want to speak to you about the horrific example you provided to the committee about the individual who was targeted—her place of business, her address and her boyfriend being communicated with. I can see how, up to this point, there is no criminal offence to deal with that type of intimidation. However, through part of this legislation—although it wouldn't require registration if it wasn't specifically deemed political activity—there would be new criminal offences that might possibly be able to deal with that situation. I recognize you've acknowledged that more can be done.

Does the fact that this isn't simply a registry—that there are also criminal offences—help alleviate some of these issues?

[Katherine Leung]

Thank you for the question.

Yes, I agree that it is alleviating for the community to know there are now criminal provisions for some of these acts of foreign interference that occur to them.

I would like to point out, however, that discrimination is not part of what is in the bill. As with the examples I raised earlier, it is a tactic used by the Chinese Communist Party and its proxies to target Canadians who are speaking out against human rights violations. That would be an important amendment to add.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. O'Connell.

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

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Fadden, I'm going to come back to you.

The amendment to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act will allow CSIS to share information with universities, municipalities, and so on. However, these entities are not in the registry.

Do you believe that entities receiving federal funding, such as universities, researchers, municipalities, and even Crown corporations, should be subject to the registry?

[Richard Fadden]

In a word, yes.

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

That's as clear as it gets.

Ms. Leung, I'll ask you the same question. You mentioned universities in your opening remarks. Do you think that universities, municipalities and Crown corporations, for example, should also be subject to the registry?

[Katherine Leung]

Yes, they should.

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

Okay. It seems all answers are clear right now.

Mr. Fadden, this entire bill on foreign interference contains no definition of what foreign interference is. How would you define it?

[Richard Fadden]

There's probably a good reason for that: It's very hard to define.

I would simply say that it's a foreign entity using non-public methods to force someone in Canada to do or not do something against their will. To some extent, it's simply a form of diplomacy done covertly and through intimidation.

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

So we're talking about veiled diplomacy and intimidation. That's interesting.

As we know, something that's not defined doesn't exist. So I find it unfortunate or annoying that an attempt is being made to set parameters that are not defined.

[Richard Fadden]

I'd like to add something. After listening to everyone, I note that we've all mentioned the coming into force issues. I may have missed this information when I was reading the bill, but it seems to me that it wouldn't be unreasonable for the bill to include a provision requiring the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs to report annually on the general operation of this act. Otherwise, information specific to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the commissioner, the Chief Electoral Officer and so on will be scattered all over. The minister should be asked to gather the information once a year, for the benefit of the public and Parliament. That would be helpful.

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

That's interesting. You're right, CSIS and the RCMP are creatures that do not tend to talk to each other.

There is also talk of a review every five years. Personally, I think that's a good thing. However, we need only think of the Privacy Act, which came into force in 1983 and has not been reviewed, or the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, which came into force in 1984 and was reviewed in 1990. Regardless of their political stripes, governments don't really make a habit of reviewing legislation every five years.

What could be done to ensure that the review is done?

[Richard Fadden]

It would simply be a matter of saying that the act will no longer be valid if no review is done. This method is sometimes used by the Americans. It's like an atomic bomb, but something like this could be done. We could say that if the review doesn't take place, that would mean a few provisions of the act are no longer valid, or we could provide for a penalty, so to speak.

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

I've never heard of that idea. That's fascinating.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We will now go to Mr. MacGregor.

You have two and a half minutes.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Fung, I'd like to continue with you.

There have been a lot of comments made about the urgency of getting this act in place quickly, given the seriousness of the issue. The consequential amendments to both the Security of Information Act and the Canada Evidence Act say they come into force on the 60th day after this act receives royal assent, so that's a pretty tight timeline. In part 4, though, regarding the new registry, it is up to the Governor in Council to fix a day. We have the parts that deal with the more clandestine nature of foreign interference coming into place relatively quickly, and we'll see how well federal agencies can make use of those new tools. However, the new registry is very much up in the air.

You made mentioned in your opening comments having some kind of commission to oversee how this act comes into force. Do you want that set up as a parallel to cabinet? I want to understand the mechanics of how you would like to see this work.