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.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
6:15 p.m.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
This amendment deals with the revision of the Act respecting countering foreign interference. During the hearings, we were obviously concerned and annoyed to learn that the Personal Information Act and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act were to be reviewed every five years, but that they weren't.
So we wrote the amendment at the suggestion of a witness who told us, in connection with the five-year review, that if there were an election next year and we elected a minority government that wouldn't stand, we could go through two election cycles without reviewing the act.
We therefore move that Bill C‑70, in clause 113, be amended by replacing lines 9 to 12 on page 86 with the following:31 (1) During the first year after a general election, a comprehensive review of this Act and its operation
We therefore propose that there be a review after each election in order to avoid the real possibility of having several elections in a five-year period without the act being reviewed.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We support this amendment.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
Iqwinder Gaheer Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON
Thank you, Chair.
To the officials, we know that this will increase the frequency of the reviews and the potential administrative burden as well. We know that Canadian elections have been the target of foreign interference.
Is a year after an election enough time to review the previous election to see if there was foreign interference and to take the proper recommendations?
June 10th, 2024 / 6:15 p.m.
Director General, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
As we read the proposed amendment, it would require a comprehensive review of the act and the operations of the act. It would allow the commissioner to review how the act performed after the election. The review would not be limited just to the election, but it would be limited to just what is in the purview of the FITAA.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
I want to clarify something. We're on BQ-18, are we not?
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Well, this is an amendment to require the House of Commons and the Senate to undertake a review of the act. It's a review by the House and the Senate, not the commissioner, if I'm correct.
6:15 p.m.
Director General, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Yes. I misspoke, Chair. I'm sorry.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Is there any further discussion?
Shall BQ-18 carry?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
6:15 p.m.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My proposed amendment BQ‑19 would require the minister to table a response to the committee's report within 90 days. Basically, we want to make the act more robust by requiring a government response, which seems desirable and logical to me.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
I would like to offer a subamendment. First, where it says, “The Minister must, no later than 90 days after the day on which the report referred to”, I would strike out “90 days” and replace it with “120 days”.
The second part of the subamendment would be to strike out proposed new subsection 31(2).
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Okay.
Is there discussion on the subamendment?
Go ahead, Ms. O'Connell.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thank you, Chair.
In terms of changing 90 days to 120 days, that's just consistent with what the practice is for tabling reports and the timeline for a response.
On striking out the second part, I just think it's important that the minister will determine the appropriate response of the report, so I don't think it's needed.