Public Safety Committee on June 10th, 2024

Evidence of meeting #114 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 chair.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

Bill C-70

Committee Business

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Clerk of the Committee Ms. Dancella Boyi

Mark Scrivens Senior Counsel, Department of Justice

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

Saskia van Battum Director, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

5:35 p.m.

NDP

Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment was drafted by my colleague Ms. Kwan. Her notes here were just referring to the fact that the China Strategic Risks Institute says that the new act being created in part four:

...does not provide the relevant authorities with a mechanism to notify affected parties of a registration requirement nor to warn the public about foreign agents of concern. Such proactive mechanisms could be developed modelled on the “information notices” and “transparency notices” within the Australian model.

That's essentially what this amendment is designed to do. I will leave it at that.

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon

Thank you.

Is there any discussion?

Ms. O'Connell, please go ahead.

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON

Thank you.

When I first read this, I had some concerns about the automatic listing of relatives, and relatives and acquaintances are loosely defined. Given some of the foreign interference that has happened, there could be unintended consequences if an individual who had nothing to do with any attempts of foreign influence was listed by a relative, so to speak. That was my initial concern.

However, perhaps I'll turn to the officials.

One, is that how you would read it? Two, do you have other concerns in regard to that connection?

I know Mr. MacGregor mentioned the Australian model, but there are differences, and I think it's around the defining of some of this. Again, I just have some concerns, especially when we heard testimony about individuals being intimidated. I don't think it's the intention of the bill to then pre-associate relatives just by nature of being related to another individual.

Could I have some clarification?

5:40 p.m.

Saskia van Battum Director, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

We did note, Mr. Chair, the connection to the Australian model. We would just say that the difference in the Australian model is that “foreign government related entity” and “foreign government related individual” are defined in the Australian model, but they are not currently in the definition in the proposed act.

The definition of “foreign principal” is specific to “foreign state,” “foreign power”, “foreign entity” and “foreign economic entity”. This would provide a lot of discretion to the commissioner to apply what they consider to be “related to” in terms of the extent of that relationship in the application.

I think too that the intent of the powers being afforded to the commissioner in the proposed act would also allow for the issuance of notices already without specifying the related provision.

5:40 p.m.

Liberal

Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON

Thank you for that.

Is my understanding correct that the notices could be automatically applied to a relative? Again, the definition of “relative” could be a cousin, for all we know. Could that be automatically be given? That raises all kinds of fairness questions.

5:40 p.m.

Director, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Saskia van Battum

Absolutely. I think it is possible that a commissioner could interpret this very broadly and apply the designation to, for example, persons related by blood, friends, acquaintances or individuals beyond those who fall within the definition of “foreign principal”. The intent of the act is certainly to work towards transparency around protecting individuals who may be most subject to that level of influence.

5:40 p.m.

Liberal

Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON

Thank you.

5:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon

Thank you.

Is there any further discussion?

Seeing none, shall NDP-8 carry?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

This brings us to NDP-9, and I will have to rule on this afterwards.

Mr. MacGregor, do you wish to move the motion?

June 10th, 2024 / 5:40 p.m.

NDP

Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC

Thank you, Chair.

I know there were some discussions with colleagues, so I am expecting a subamendment. Before we get to that stage, I'll just say quickly that we did hear from a variety of witnesses who expressed a desire to see the appointment of the commissioner to be a little bit more detached from relying too much on the Governor in Council. It's the same process as would be in place for the appointment of the auditor general.

I note there are some remarkable similarities with CPC-3 right behind it.

I'll leave it at that and see what my colleagues have to say.

5:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon

The bill provides for the appointment by the Governor in Council of a foreign influence transparency commissioner. This amendment provides that the Governor in Council cannot make the appointment without the approval of Parliament.

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment creates a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill as adopted by the House at second reading. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

Go ahead, Mr. MacGregor.

5:40 p.m.

NDP

Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC

I wish to challenge the chair on that.

5:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon

Absolutely.

Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?

I think we need a recorded vote.

5:40 p.m.