Debates of May 29th, 2024

Countering Foreign Interference Act

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for me to split my time with the member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect their institutions to protect them from the malign threat activities of authoritarian states. Canadians expect the whole of the Government of Canada, including its intelligence agencies and law enforcement, to protect our elections and democratic institutions from the coercive, clandestine and corrupt foreign interference threat activities of authoritarian states. That is what Canadians expect, and that is why Canadians were so shocked when the extent of foreign interference in our democracy was revealed to Parliament and to the public.

Justice Hogue, who was leading the foreign interference public inquiry, concluded in the inquiry's initial report that “interference occurred in the last two general elections” and became so serious that it “diminished the ability of some voters to cast an informed vote”. She also concluded that foreign interference had a negative impact on the broader electoral ecosystem in the 2019 and 2021 elections, and that it undermined public confidence in Canadian democracy.

The government was slow to act on the advice from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and other national security bodies, who had identified these threatening activities years ago, before the two general elections that followed.

The Prime Minister was first warned in 2018 by the director of CSIS of the existential threat from foreign interference threat activities of the People's Republic of China here in Canada. National security agencies advised the government to introduce a range of measures to counter these threats, including legislation. It took years for the government to introduce Bill C-70, an act respecting countering foreign interference, but finally it has been introduced. Let me outline our views on this bill.

The bill is divided into four parts. Part 1 proposes amendments to the CSIS Act. These amendments are the most significant changes to the act in decades. As my hon. colleague, the minister, pointed out, the CSIS Act was introduced in 1984, just after disco but before the introduction of the Internet, social media, smart phones and many other technologies. The amendments would allow CSIS to obtain preservation and production orders as well as warrants to obtain information, records or documents through a single attempt. They would allow CSIS to better collect, retain and analyze data for intelligence purposes. They would allow CSIS to collect foreign intelligence for the first time and would allow CSIS to disclose classified information outside of the government, to provinces, municipalities, universities and companies.

Part 2 would amend the Security of Information Act and the Criminal Code to create new foreign interference offences. The bill would create a new offence of up to life in prison for a person who commits any indictable offence under the Criminal Code or under any other act of Parliament at the direction of, for the benefit of or in association with a foreign entity. The bill would also create new offences for a person who engages in clandestine activities at the direction of, for the benefit of or in association with a foreign entity that is prejudicial to the safety or interests of Canada or to influence the exercise of a democratic right in Canada.

The bill facilitates foreign interference proceedings by eliminating the need for the Crown to demonstrate that the purpose of the foreign interference is to harm Canadian interests if the person who committed the offence or the victim has a link to Canada.

Finally, part 2 would amend the Criminal Code to broaden the offence of sabotage to include sabotage against essential infrastructure, which is defined as transportation, information and communication technology, water and waste water, energy and utilities, health care, food supply, government operations and financial infrastructure. Sabotage is defined as anyone who “interferes with access to essential infrastructure” or anyone who “causes an essential infrastructure to be lost, inoperable, unsafe or unfit for use” with the intent to “endanger the safety, security or defence of Canada” or the armed forces of an ally in Canada, or to cause “serious risk to the health or safety of the public”. As the minister pointed out earlier, the minister's view is that essential infrastructure includes the construction of essential infrastructure.

The sabotage offence provided for in the bill is punishable by up to 10 years in prison, and for greater certainty, part 2 makes it clear that it exempts legal advocacy, protest or dissent that does not intend to cause harm.

Part 3 would amend the Canada Evidence Act and would make consequential amendments to other acts to create a general scheme to deal with information related to foreign affairs, national defence or national security in Federal Court proceedings. It proposes amendments that would permit the appointment of a special counsel to protect the interests of non-governmental parties in those proceedings.

The fourth and final part of the bill would establish the foreign influence transparency and accountability act, which creates a foreign influence registry and a new foreign influence transparency commissioner. Any person under the direction of or in association with a foreign state or foreign government, or any entity controlled by that state or government, and who communicates with a public office holder, who communicates or disseminates information to the public about political or governmental processes, or who distributes money or items of value, or provides a service or the use of a facility, must register.

The bill would create an indictable offence of up to five years in prison and up to $5 million in administrative monetary penalties for failing to register, for providing false or misleading information to the commissioner or for obstructing the commissioner's work. These are tough penalties for failing to register, and they will have a deterring effect on those thinking about acting on behalf of a foreign state or a foreign-controlled entity in a corrupt, coercive and clandestine manner.

For those who do act in such a manner and, as I expect, do not register, tools are available to law enforcement and other enforcement entities, such as the commissioner, to hold these individuals accountable for their activities, either through the new administrative monetary penalties of up to $5 million, which have a much lower threshold for use, or through a referral to the appropriate police of jurisdiction for criminal prosecution.

The new foreign influence transparency commissioner would oversee a public registry containing information on individuals engaged in influence activities on behalf of a foreign principal. The act provides that the commissioner is to provide reports to the public safety minister and Parliament. The commissioner is appointed by Governor in Council, effectively by the Prime Minister, after consultations with the leaders of the House of Commons and Senate. However, ultimately the decision to appoint the commissioner is a decision of the Prime Minister's alone.

In principle, we support Bill C-70. Now that it has finally been introduced, the government, the official opposition and other recognized parties in this House must work together to ensure that our democratic institutions and elections are protected from the threats of authoritarian states. Inaction and delay cannot continue. As Justice Hogue noted, the risk from the impacts of foreign interference will only increase as long as “sufficient protective measures to guard against it” are not taken.

As our general election draws closer and as the life of this Parliament draws to an end, time is running out to strengthen the confidence Canadians have in our elections through legislation.

That is why the Conservatives are proposing to work with the government and the other parties in the House to fast-track the adoption of Bill C‑70 in the House of Commons and in committee, leaving enough time to implement foreign interference protection measures before the election.

Conservatives will work in good faith to ensure the rapid progress of Bill C-70 through the House while ensuring sufficient scrutiny of its provisions. We are willing to consider amendments to the bill, but we want it to pass.

The government has often asked the official opposition to work with it, and this is an instance in which we will.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice, and I am encouraged to hear, that the official opposition sees the merit of this bill. As the government and the minister have stated on many occasions, foreign interference is something we should all be concerned about. We are far more effective if we can act as one in many different ways.

I understand the member has not had the legislation for long, but does he have a sense of any amendments that he could see being made to the legislation or, on the whole, to the principles of the legislation, which he is quite prepared to see pass relatively quickly?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I note that part 4 of the bill provides for the creation of a commissioner. That commissioner would be situated within the machinery of government, within the Department of Public Safety Canada, and would be appointed at the advice of the Prime Minister. An amendment that would perhaps strengthen the independence of that office would be to appoint the commissioner after the Prime Minister has consulted with leaders of the recognized parties in the House of Commons and the Senate and after resolutions have been adopted by both the House and Senate. Perhaps that amendment would strengthen the independence of the office.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his heartfelt speech, considering that he was the victim of interference or threats. It was a very interesting speech.

The bill will definitely be improved in committee. The Bloc Québécois had introduced a bill to improve the process. It included the principle of two-party registration. We also wanted the registry to include universities. Finally, it prohibited former public office holders from working on behalf of a foreign state for three years.

Does the member think these are worthwhile measures that would strengthen democracy and the security of our elections?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are measures in this bill that will give CSIS the power to disclose classified information to universities, municipalities and provinces to ensure that they have the information they need to protect their interests. We support this measure. We think it is very important to give our national security agencies the power to do that.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, Canadian history is replete with examples where Canadians of different origin have had their loyalties questioned because of nothing more than their nationality. This includes Italian Canadians, Hungarian Canadians and of course the infamous example of the internment of Japanese Canadians, who had their loyalties questioned simply because of where their heritage came from.

As my hon. colleague pointed out, part 4 of this bill seeks to establish for the first time a registry of foreign influence. I know my hon. colleague is a strong proponent of free speech and making sure we have political freedom in this country. Does he think clause 113, which defines the criteria upon which the need to register is set forth, strikes the appropriate balance to make sure that we are truly catching those who are working at the behest of a foreign state or, for their own benefit, for a foreign state, as opposed to Canadians who are simply expressing their views that might or might not correspond with those of a different country?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my father came here in 1952 from Hong Kong as a Chinese immigrant, several years after the Chinese Exclusion Act was repealed. However, even though that legislation had been repealed, the sentiments that underpinned it still remained in Canada.

We have to be acutely sensitive to diaspora communities. I note that this bill is agnostic when it comes to foreign states and foreign governments. It would require all persons to register, regardless of the foreign entity or foreign principle they are acting on behalf of, in association with or at the direction of. It is a fair bill that would ensure there is greater sunlight and transparency, which also makes it an important tool to ensure that diaspora communities are not unfairly targeted. When information is made public, bad actors are made known and everyone else is understood to be innocent.

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion, which would see the bill voted on at third reading by Wednesday, June 12, at end of day.

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-70, an act respecting countering foreign interference, shall be disposed of as follows:

(a) at the expiry of the time provided for government orders later today, the bill would be deemed adopted at second reading and referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security;

(b) during the consideration of the bill by the committee: (1) the committee shall have the first priority for the use of House resources for committee meetings; (2) the committee shall meet for extended hours on Monday, June 3; Tuesday, June 4; Wednesday, June 5; and Thursday, June 6, to gather evidence from witnesses; (3) the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs, the officials from the RCMP and CSIS, the national security and intelligence adviser to the Prime Minister, the officials from the Department of Public Safety and other expert witnesses deemed relevant by the committee be invited to appear; (4) all amendments be submitted to the clerk of the committee by 9 a.m. on Monday, June 10; (5) amendments filed by independent members shall be deemed to have been proposed during the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; (6) the committee shall meet at 3.30 p.m. on Monday, June 10—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I am hearing “no”.

It sounded good until that point. I guess maybe the caucuses can go back and discuss that programming motion.

On the same point of order, the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that was not what was agreed to, but I am sure we will be presenting something similar in the coming hours.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make it very clear that it was the NDP that said no to this very common-sense motion to get the legislation passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, we had good-faith conversations on this motion. We agreed, up to a certain point. If the Conservatives want to reword it, they will find that the NDP is going to be quite co-operative on this matter. I would like to put that on the record.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we should probably take these discussions off-line so we can find out why the NDP members are opposed to having the bill passed by a certain date. That was the key part—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I do not want to get too deeply into the discussion.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when we have good-faith negotiations behind the scenes, we do not engage in partisan jabs such as that.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

That is right. Let us continue the discussions.

In the meantime, let us go to the next speaker.

The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-70, an act respecting countering foreign interference. My colleague, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, has done a good job outlining some of the key measures provided for in the bill, which I will not repeat. Needless to say, on the whole, the measures and safeguards provided in the bill, including establishing new foreign interference-specific offences, as well as a foreign influence registry, are welcomed and, frankly, long overdue.

It is on that basis that Conservatives are committed to seeing the bill move through the legislative process expeditiously. It is disappointing to see that, in our efforts to do this, we were blocked by the NDP members, who seem to want to hold up the legislation. It is imperative that the bill move forward as quickly as possible; officials have indicated that it may take up to one year to fully implement the bill upon it receiving royal assent. We need to have these measures. We need to have these safeguards in place for the next election. Time is of the essence.

While the bill is welcomed, I must ask why it has taken the government so long to introduce legislation to counter foreign interference. For years, the Prime Minister has been warned by CSIS and other agencies about the threat of foreign interference. The fact is that foreign interference is on the rise; it threatens our sovereignty, our democracy, and the safety and security of Canadians, particularly those in diaspora communities.

The Prime Minister has repeatedly and very specifically been briefed about the most significant foreign interference state threat, namely, the Beijing-based Communist regime. As far back as 2017, the Prime Minister's national security and intelligence adviser briefed the Prime Minister that agents of Beijing were assisting Canadian candidates running for political offices. That was eight years ago; it has taken the government eight long years to finally come around to introducing legislation to counter that type of foreign interference.

In the 2019 election, four top Liberals who were closely connected to the Prime Minister received a classified CSIS briefing, warning them that one of the Liberal candidates, now the member for Don Valley North, was assisted by Beijing in winning the Liberal nomination in Don Valley North. One of the top Liberals who was briefed, who had the requisite security clearance, informed the Prime Minister of the contents of that brief immediately, which was quite appropriate.

What did the Prime Minister do with that information? Let us think about it.

The Prime Minister is informed that there is CSIS intelligence that one of his candidates was being assisted by Beijing, presumably because Beijing viewed that individual as someone who would best advance Beijing's interests in Ottawa. Did the Prime Minister seek to inquire with CSIS to learn more about the situation and what intelligence it had? Did he ask any questions? No, the Prime Minister turned a blind eye, allowing that individual to stand as a candidate and to be elected to the House of Commons.

In her first report, Madam Justice Hogue concluded that there was no evidence that the Prime Minister asked any questions or provided for any follow-up. Even worse than that is the conclusion that Madam Justice Hogue drew, which is that the Prime Minister decided against disallowing that candidate on the basis of direct electoral consequences.

In other words, the Prime Minister put his political interests and the interests of the Liberal Party ahead of countering Beijing's interference in our elections and in our democracy. I would submit that this is a damning indictment of the Prime Minister by Madam Justice Hogue.

However, there is more. Following the 2019 election, the Prime Minister was repeatedly told by CSIS that Beijing interfered in the 2019 and 2021 elections. What did the Prime Minister do upon being briefed? Once again, the Prime Minister turned a blind eye, doing nothing. Worse than that, the Prime Minister sought to hide Beijing's interference, to cover it up. In contrast to the very advice that he had received from CSIS, that the policy of the Government of Canada to counter foreign interference ought to be based on sunlight and transparency and that the government should make foreign interference activities known to the public, the Prime Minister's policy was one of cover-up.

The degree of interference in the 2019 and 2021 elections ought not be minimized, but the Prime Minister has repeatedly attempted to do so. Members need not take my word for it. They can take the words of Madam Justice Hogue in her first report from the foreign interference inquiry. She concluded unequivocally that there was interference in the last two federal elections and that such interference was serious insofar as it “diminished the ability of some voters to cast an informed vote”. Although foreign interference did not change the overall result of the election, Madam Justice Hogue noted that it may have impacted the results in certain ridings and that this interference had a negative impact on the “broader electoral ecosystem”.

Those are very concerning findings. The fact is that the Prime Minister had been repeatedly briefed before the 2019 election, after the 2019 election and after the 2021 election but took no action and downplayed Beijing's interference after it was revealed, thanks to reports from The Globe and Mail and Global News. This demonstrates that the Prime Minister bears some level of responsibility for Beijing's attack on our democracy in the last two federal elections.

That brings us back to the timing of the proposed bill: Why have the Liberals finally seen fit to introduce legislation to counter foreign interference now? There is only one reason. It is that the Prime Minister got caught turning a blind eye to Beijing's interference and attempting to cover it up. Had he not been caught, the legislation would never have seen the light of day. This is demonstrated by the fact that the bill was introduced on the first sitting day following the issuance of Madam Justice Hogue's report. The Liberals knew that the report was going to be incredibly damaging to the government, which it most certainly was, and this was their way of providing political cover for themselves.

Therefore, while the bill is welcome, the government deserves absolutely no credit for having been dragged, kicking and screaming, to introduce it after the Prime Minister turned a blind eye to Beijing's interference in our elections. Under the Prime Minister's watch, foreign interference has increased, and it is part of the sad record of a failed Prime Minister.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to contrast the member's speech with that of the previous speaker, in terms of the content and substance within.

To the member across the way, I would say that international foreign interference is something that has been around for quite a while. It was around even when Stephen Harper was prime minister; I think that particular member worked for PMO or maybe one of those Conservative backbenches then. I am not 100% sure who it was, but he was affiliated. That particular prime minister did absolutely nothing. He just completely ignored the issue of foreign interference.

We take foreign interference seriously. In fact, if I were allowed more time, I would be able to expand on many of the things that we have done in addressing this particular issue. We have a minister who has put in a great deal of effort working with professional civil servants and others to ensure that we have the legislation that we have here today. By the way, I believe the member across the way supports the principles of it and will see it go to committee. Does the member have any ideas in terms of potential amendments to the legislation?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, we will look at the bill and we will scrutinize it, but on the whole, the measures are welcome. However, that does not take away the fact that the bill has come too late. It has come as a result of the government's dragging its feet for years. The best that can be said of the Prime Minister, in terms of how he and his government have responded to foreign interference, is that he has been asleep at the switch. However, it may be worse, because there is evidence that at times the Prime Minister has been complicit; he has gone along with Beijing's interference because it has benefited the Liberal Party, and that is really quite disgraceful.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I would ask members to remain seated unless they have questions.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the bill has come very late in terms of implementing anything before the next election. What is the impact of what just happened here in the House, with the NDP's not being willing to advance the bill in a more speedy way?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, it really raises the question of whether the NDP is doing the dirty work of the government. It raises questions about whether the government is serious about actually moving the bill forward in time for the next election—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby is rising on a point of order.