Public Safety Committee on June 10th, 2024

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm very pleased to move amendment BQ‑5, which, for brevity's sake, I'll call the double registration amendment, which Mr. Bilodeau and I have already discussed.

It may not be traditional, I agree, but it seems to me that when you want to establish a link between two parties, it's wise to identify the two parties in question. Of course, the measures won't be the same at every level. For example, universities may decide to use a diary rather than a large system. However, in the case of a public office holder, I believe that the person who registers as a foreign principal will have a correspondent at the other end, and it is this link that will enable us to establish a consequence or determine whether the relationship is legitimate. If I only have one end, i.e., the foreign principal, but I don't know who is at the other end, it's hard to make a connection and come to an understanding of what is going on.

In committee, some people told us it was a good idea. Others weren't sure, and still others said it was a bad idea. Opinions were very divided, but the fact remains that dual registration is part of best practice, not only in the context of a foreign interference registry, but in general. Establishing a double registration guarantees the possibility of identifying a source with much greater certainty.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Villemure.

I meant to interrupt you after you moved this amendment. I have to make a ruling on it.

Bill C-70 amends several acts and enacts a foreign influence transparency and accountability act. The bill provides that persons who enter into an arrangement with a foreign principal under which they undertake to carry out certain activities are required to provide the commissioner with the information specified in the regulations.

The amendment seeks to add that even if no arrangement has been entered into, any individual other than a public office holder must file a return with the commissioner if that individual receives a communication from a foreign principal requesting that the individual take certain actions.

In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment adds 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. Villemure.

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

Mr. Chair, I respectfully challenge your decision.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Fine.

Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 4)

That brings us to BQ-6.

Mr. Villemure, you can move it, but I also have to rule on this one.

Bill C-70 amends several acts and so on and so forth. Once again, 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.

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

Mr. Chair, I respectfully challenge your decision.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Fine.

Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 9; nays 2)

Thank you.

That brings us to BQ-7.

Mr. Villemure, would you like to move this?

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

No, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Okay.

That brings us to BQ-8.

Mr. Villemure, I will also have to rule on this. Do you wish to move BQ-8?

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

Yes, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

It's the same problem. 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.

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

Mr. Chair, I respectfully challenge your decision.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Fine.

Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 9; nays 2)

Merci.

That brings us to BQ-9.

I'll give you forewarning: I'm not going to rule it inadmissible.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I'm not supposed to rule on it until it's been moved. It's kind of a gotcha, really.

Anyway, go ahead.

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

I will move amendment BQ‑9, Mr. Chair.

Several witnesses, including Mr. Burton, Mr. Juneau‑Katsuya and Mr. Fadden, have told us that it is wise, if not essential, for public office holders to be subject to a three‑year restriction period. The aim is clear: to prevent former public office holders from making arrangements with foreign states. We want to make sure that all MPs who don't run in the next election will also be subject to it. We believe this is a wise amendment that serves the public interest. That's why we're proposing it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Monsieur Villemure.

Ms. O'Connell, go ahead, please.

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

Chair, while I think the intentions are good in the sense that if a foreign state were trying to influence Canada and a former public office holder went to work with them, that would be problematic. The problem is that this amendment is quite broad; it just says “a former public office holder must not enter into an agreement with a foreign principal”.

What if that arrangement was something with one of our allies? Promoting democracy is work that I think many public office holders do, and the experience in Canada would be actually quite helpful. There's a distinction between work involving foreign agents or influence and the important work that actually promotes democracy around the world, and this does not distinguish between the two.

The other concern I have is that it's just too broad and doesn't deal with it. If an individual, whether a public office holder or not, entered into an arrangement with a foreign principal to impact or to advise on behalf of that foreign principal, the foreign principal would be subject to the foreign agent registry and would have to be identified on that anyway.

Again, I think the intentions are good, but the way it is drafted is too broad to allow for the distinction, and the registry itself would allow for the disclosure of that individual in any sort of arrangement with a foreign principal, so we can't support this amendment as it is drafted.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Mr. MacGregor, go ahead.

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

I think this is a solid amendment. I won't go over the reasons that Mr. Villemure gave, but the NSICOP report that was tabled last week did talk about how some public office holders are expecting a quid pro quo arrangement, and I think if we're going to nip that problem in the bud by putting into law that a public office holder cannot enter into an arrangement with a foreign principal for the specified period of three years, that's a good proactive step. It shows foreign principals that their investments are not going to bear any fruit.

We have to look at the seriousness of the problem, and I believe it is incumbent upon this committee to explore all the legislative options at our disposal, so I will happily be supporting this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor. Is there any further discussion?

Mr. MacDonald, go ahead.

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Chair, can we ask the officials if there are any consequences or complications from adopting this as is?

[Richard Bilodeau]

I think one of the things that stood out when we looked at the amendment was that there were already provisions in the Conflict of Interest Act, and so we would have to explore the consequences of this or the interactions between a prohibition and the conflict of interest legislation.

There are also questions about whether the registry, by requiring that transparency, is sufficient to shine a light. That's what the transparency registry is about—increasing the transparency of that influence in Canada.

Those are the two things I would point out, but definitely the interaction between this and existing legislation, whether it's the Lobbying Act or the Conflict of Interest Act, in fact would be worth exploring.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Villemure, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Bilodeau, thank you for the clarification. I believe that the very nature of the threat we are discussing today demonstrates that the debate will be complex and difficult, but also, that it must take place.

As you know, these are not cases that have never been seen before. However, as my colleague from the NDP said, foreign powers are currently investing in people to take action. Now, it seems to me that the degree of seriousness of the threat does not call for nuance. And yet, from what I've been hearing for a while now, we're going to step back and leave room for interpretation. I agree with that to a certain extent, but I don't think that ending up with a toothless bill is a good idea.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Is there any further discussion?

Shall amendment BQ-9 carry?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

That brings us to amendment NDP-8.

Mr. MacGregor, go ahead, please.