Public Safety Committee on June 6th, 2024

[Simon Noël]

It's difficult for me to answer that. How can we trust the decision‑maker who has to decide whether or not there could be some openness? I can only use my example. You'll see that it will address your concerns in part.

When ministers and directors make requests, they often rally around one or more cabinet decisions. There's nothing in the act that allows me to review those decisions. I find that inconsistent with the concept. How can I be asked to check whether I'm missing any elements in these conditions?

That said, I've begun discussions with both agencies to tell them to be logical with themselves. If they want to make solid decisions, they have to give me access to those documents. In the meantime, they have gotten into the habit of preparing summaries for me.

I go back to the decision of Justice Thurlow in 1978. If you said the word “cabinet”, it was over, blocked. I see that things are changing more and more, but that the Supreme Court recently strengthened its position in an Ontario case. It's a work in progress. That's the only way you can do it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Noël.

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

I get the impression that the culture was more one of obscurity than transparency. That's always one of the things we worry about as members of Parliament.

[Simon Noël]

You're right to point that out.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

We go now to Mr. MacGregor to bring us home.

You have two minutes and a half.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to continue with the NCCM.

Particularly with the amendments to the SOIA, we've heard the term “transnational repression” come up a lot. I was struck by the testimony we received from members of the Tibetan community and Uyghur community, who both have a very troubled history with the People's Republic of China. They were listing off the intimidation and all the different tactics that have been used against members of their communities because of what's going on in their home countries.

All of the things they want included as a part of a definition of “transnational repression” might already be included in the amendments to the SOIA. However, do you see the conundrum we're in? We have different communities pulling us in different ways. I understand your concerns with the lack of a definition of “intimidation”, so if you want to add to that, please go ahead.

There is a theme to the way this bill deals with foreign interference, but the part that seems to stick out is the amendments to the Criminal Code updating the definition of “sabotage”. I asked the Minister of Justice about that, and he made reference to the fact that this provision of the Criminal Code dates back to the 1950s, hence the necessity to update it. There are sections in the Criminal Code that allow for proper advocacy, protest or dissent.

Do you have anything to add, specifically in reference to this section, on what we should be looking at for amendments?

[Ahmad Al Qadi]

With respect to the Criminal Code, I will pass that over to our legal director.

We have a tremendous amount of respect for the Uyghur rights activists and the Canada Tibet Committee for the stances they took. I viewed the hearings where they discussed transnational repression, and I understand the conundrum you find yourselves in regarding the many different definitions being proposed for amendment in this legislation. However, from my perspective, I encourage you to include them. These are the folks who have seen the front-facing reality of foreign interference.

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

I'll need your colleague to jump in quickly.

[Ahmad Al Qadi]

Yes, of course. I apologize.

[Nusaiba Al Azem]

I'm happy to jump in.

I want to respectfully make very clear from the get-go that we're talking about the same communities. They are not differing needs. The communities you're referencing are the same ones that are vulnerable to many of the inadvertent issues impacting civil liberties that we've raised. It's all one and the same.

To go back to our position, we ultimately support the bill. It's just about making sure it's done in a way that protects people in Canada so we can exercise our democratic rights and keep folks safe. This means Uyghur activists who have been wrongly accused, for example, of connections to terrorism. It shouldn't stop them from being able to protest in front of the Chinese consulate, which in the past has been suggested as intimidating behaviour. You say it's a conundrum, but it's really not a conundrum. It's about making sure that we get it right the first time in a way that ensures the community is safe.

With respect to the briefing we received, the general definition of intimidation falls far too flat to protect the communities you're referencing.

Does that answer your question?

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

It certainly provides a lot more guidance. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here today and joining us on such short notice. Your contributions are most helpful. They will help us move forward in our study. You may withdraw at this point if you wish to do so.

I would like to remind the committee that amendments to Bill C-70 must be submitted to the clerk by 4 p.m. Eastern Standard Time tomorrow. It's important for members to note that pursuant to the order adopted by the House on May 30, the 4 p.m. deadline to submit amendments is firm. This means that any amendments submitted to the clerk after the deadline and any amendments moved from the floor during clause-by-clause consideration of the bill will not be considered by the committee.

The clerk has advised me about the amendments package and when it will be distributed. If there are fewer than 20 amendments, we will probably get it by six o'clock on Friday. If there are more than that, there's an open question of when we will get it.

I would also remind the committee that we'll meet again on Monday at 3:30, and we will sit here until we're done. That will depend on the amendments.

I'd like to thank all of the committee personnel who have stuck with us through all of this. I'm particularly thankful for the ongoing endurance of our analysts, who have been here hour upon hour, and the perseverance of our clerk. A week ago we dumped a massive list on his lap.

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

He also made breakfast.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

He also made breakfast.

He's had to communicate with a massive number of witnesses and figure out who's available and when, and adjust and negotiate.

I want to thank everyone involved.

Having said that, let's adjourn.