Public Safety Committee on June 6th, 2024

[Heather Watts, Deputy Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Justice]

The consultations on the justice parts of the bill ran from November to February, I believe, and prior to that, there were consultations done by our colleagues in Public Safety on the registry. I believe they started in May 2023, if memory serves.

[Richard Bilodeau, Director General, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

It was in March 2023, for two months.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

So the consultations on the public safety aspects lasted two months, and the consultations on the other aspects lasted about three months.

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

That's why I find it difficult to review this bill in four days, frankly. The subjects addressed are very serious and very important, and the implications are significant. I find that the review is a bit rushed.

Mr. LeBlanc, I'm going to go back to an answer you gave a little earlier. It's true that party leaders can request the appropriate security clearance so that they can review the information. In doing so, however, they're also bound to secrecy in perpetuity. For us, at least, the offer is appreciated, but it's not very useful.

Is there another mechanism that could help us, apart from that?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Again, I appreciate the sincerity of your question, and I share your sentiment.

For example, let's say a party leader has access to the secret report of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, the version that could not be made public. He can then use the information contained in that report to make decisions related to his responsibilities as party leader.

You're absolutely right that a political party leader is always required not to disclose information, as are we here, and as are my agency colleagues.

That said, the information consulted by the party leader can still be used to make the necessary decisions on candidacies, for example.

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

So it's possible to make a decision while respecting the need to maintain secrecy.

Thank you very much.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. MacGregor, you have two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Very quickly, Minister Virani, we've heard the term “transnational repression” come up from a few witness groups. Are you satisfied that the amendments to the SOIA in this bill cover what groups we're concerned with on transnational repression?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I am. We've listened to that concern, and I think we've addressed it in as flexible a way as possible to capture as much transnational repression as we can.

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

It's something I've been wondering about as a committee member.

Minister LeBlanc, I want to turn to you.

From the exchanges we've had, I think there's an obvious difference between intelligence and evidence, and there can be a real struggle using intelligence to get to evidence because of the secret nature of the sources. I understand all that. I also understand that our leader, Mr. Singh, took the briefing because, of course, foreign interference has directly impacted him personally. We know that it has affected his personal life—where he can go, his family and so on. I think that's very much public knowledge.

I want to get your thoughts on part 4 of this bill and creating the public registry. There's a definition in the bill of “arrangement”, which reads, “under the direction of or in association with”. This is going to be a public registry, but there's a very real difference between being under the direction of a foreign principal and in association with a foreign principal. I would like to hear from you on how you see the difference between those two terms. As this is going to be a public registry, it could have some severe implications for the people put on it, even if they're just in association with a foreign principal.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. MacGregor, I think you're right to identify your leader's thoughtful approach to this issue. I think Canadians, because it was part of the public record, were understandably upset that he and his family were potentially targeted in some of these contexts. I certainly continue to share a concern around his ability to do his work as a parliamentarian.

You raise a good question, Mr. MacGregor. I know that Mr. Bilodeau has worked on the details of the registry regarding the principals. Why we are all, I hope, in favour of the registry is well known, so I won't repeat that. The specific distinction between “in association with” and “under the direction of” I get. I can think about a solicitor-client relationship, for example, and how that might be different.

Maybe Mr. Bilodeau can give you a precise answer to that question, because it's a good one.

[Richard Bilodeau]

Thank you, Minister.

The answer is that the bill is intended to capture a broad variety of arrangements. It's not required that they be in writing, but the commissioner would still need to show that there is some sort of understanding between a foreign state and an entity in Canada to conduct the influence activities. It was built this way to allow the commissioner the flexibility to enforce the legislation.

To the point about individuals being identified on the registry by virtue of that arrangement, there are recourses within the legislation. For an individual who felt that they should not be listed, there is an opportunity for judicial review of that decision. The safeguards are built into the legislation.

The last point I would make is that the commissioner will have the ability to issue interpretation and guidance. That could inform what they consider an arrangement.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'll add that the registry is not a stigmatizing entity that is implying criminal conduct or inappropriate conduct. It's a transparency document. That's an important distinction.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.

We're substantially over time, but since I messed up with Ms. O'Connell and gave her substantially more time, I'm going to give Mr. Motz one minute for a question.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you, Ministers.

Given the importance of Bill C-70, we know that Parliament has been doing its job. Now we want the government to do theirs. Will each of you ministers commit today to having Bill C-70 in place and fully implemented before the next election, yes or no?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

That's certainly our objective. We recognize the urgency. That's why we appreciate, as I said in my opening comments, our House's work. We don't know what the Senate will do, but as to the elements that are within government control, I can assure our colleagues that we will ensure they're in place with the implementation of the legislation.

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

Quickly, how do you plan to implement it? Would it be by order in council or some other thing? Officials have said that it could take a year. We may not have a year. Would an order in council suffice to make sure it gets done before the next election?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

I'm not an expert on the order in council. For certain provisions of the legislation, like the appointment of the commissioner—all of these things—we'll be proceeding expeditiously and consulting Parliament, of course. Maybe Mr. Virani can speak to the question of an order in council coming in.

Mr. Motz, it's a very good question. I think colleagues should be under no illusion: We very much, as I think you do, want to have this in place before the next election. That's why we're so encouraged by the work that's going on here.

Arif, did you want to add something?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Yes.

Minister LeBlanc and I will work co-operatively to prioritize this legislation. It's very important, as has been underscored.

I would just note, Mr. Motz, that the coming-into-force provisions are 60 days after royal assent. We can't control the Senate process, but we'll do everything in our power to ensure that legislation of this nature is prioritized.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Motz.

Thank you, Ministers, for all your great testimony today. It's been most helpful.

We will be losing a few of our officials and getting a few new ones. We'll suspend as we replace the panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting back to order.

I would like to welcome the new officials joining their colleagues at the table. From the Privy Council Office, we have Nathalie Drouin, deputy clerk of the Privy Council and national security and intelligence adviser to the Prime Minister. With the Department of Justice, we have Mark Scrivens, senior counsel, and Karine Bolduc, counsel.

I understand that officials will not be making opening statements, so we will now open the floor for questions. We will go first to Mr. Caputo for six minutes.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the officials for being here.

I will pose a question generally. We have officials, and whoever feels they can answer it best, please feel free to chime in.

There was some discussion about a security briefing and whether somebody who has a clearance can receive a security briefing. For instance, the leader of the NDP has said that he would like to get a briefing. Can anything be divulged from the information in a briefing if a person receives it? Can somebody question the government based on the information in that briefing?