Debates of May 29th, 2024

Countering Foreign Interference Act

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

Madam Speaker, I think we see the problem with the Conservative caucus in understanding good-faith negotiations. One does not do what the member has just done.

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

The hon. member knows that we are not going to enter into that debate.

The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton can perhaps be more judicious.

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

Madam Speaker, the NDP-Liberal government will be tested very shortly, and it has already in part failed the test, with what the NDP did moments ago. It has a choice. It can move the bill forward expeditiously. We support that. The bill does need to be passed. It does need to receive royal assent as soon as possible so the safeguards can be in place in the next election.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am just curious. This has been ongoing for a long time, the issue of foreign interference impacting our elections, impacting candidates, influencing elections and influencing candidates. How closely are the Americans monitoring what is going on in this country?

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

Madam Speaker, I think our allies have increasingly become concerned that this country has been subjected to interference by the Beijing-based regime. In fact last week the U.S. Congress was scrutinizing the alarming national security breach at the Winnipeg lab, where agents of Beijing infiltrated our highest-security lab under the current government's watch. It was a massive national security failure that has drawn international concern.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, in a few words, I would like my colleague to explain why the interference commissioner should be independent.

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

Madam Speaker, that is an interesting question. The commissioner would be housed, as presented in the bill, within the department of public safety. There may be merits to that from a resource standpoint, but it is something that does need to be further considered at the committee stage, in terms of how the commissioner should be established and whether, in fact, the commissioner should be housed within the department of public safety or be independent.

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

Madam Speaker, in small doses, candour can have a certain charm. It says that someone does not mean any harm. However, naivety is always a flaw because it stems from lack of judgment.

When it comes to foreign interference, the government has been very naive in recent years. This naivety is coupled with the government's standing flaw: pride. Pride prevents it from quickly admitting to and correcting its mistakes, and going so far as to hide what should be disclosed, even at the expense of the common good.

I am also pleased that Bill C‑70 represents a change in direction. I will say right off the bat that the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of Bill C‑70, countering foreign interference act. With this bill, the government is telling us, or trying to tell us, that it has finally shaken its naivety. That is a good start.

As always at the federal level, there is concern that efficiency is not the government's priority. These are things that can and should be corrected in committee and will not change the principle of the bill. As I was saying, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C‑70 at second reading. We hope it will be sent to committee quickly. Once we get to committee, we will have to be vigilant and careful, because this bill deals with fundamental issues

In fact, there are three main reasons for moving this update of Canadian laws along. The first reason is the international situation. These are tense times. There is a new cold war—not entirely cold, but more complex, with more players. Russia and China are more aggressive. Influence campaigns, lobbying and disinformation campaigns are on the rise.

We saw this five years ago with the case of the two Michaels. In December 2018, at Washington's request, Canada arrested Meng Wanzhou, the CFO of telecoms giant Huawei. Rather than go after the Americans, China preferred to go after its defenceless little brother, Canada. In retaliation, the Chinese government arrested two Canadian citizens in China and took trade measures against Canadian and Quebec farmers—

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am hearing voices from both sides of the House. I would like to take this opportunity to say that my Liberal colleagues' conversations on the other side are quite loud. It might be worth reminding them to keep their voices down when a colleague is making a speech.

There is also something else that is causing a disruption. For some time now, there seems to be a speaker or earpiece that is broadcasting the interpretation in English. I do not know whether it is in the chamber or in the gallery.

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

I believe it is indeed the listening devices. I will ask for someone to check whether any telephones are causing noise in the gallery. I hear it very distinctly here as well. I would also encourage members to keep their conversations low or, ideally, take them outside the House.

The hon. government House leader on a point of order.

Business of the House

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member, but since his speech was already interrupted, I would like to request that the ordinary hour of daily adjournment of the next sitting be 12 a.m., pursuant to order made Wednesday, February 28.

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

Pursuant to order made on Wednesday, February 28, the request is deemed adopted.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C‑70, An Act respecting countering foreign interference, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Countering Foreign Interference Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Drummond. All those voices were rather distracting.

As I was saying, the Chinese government arrested two Canadian citizens in China and took trade actions against Quebec and Canadian farmers, all to influence Canadian policy and force the government to give in. These dramatic actions, which were taken openly, constitute aggressive diplomacy. However, to be very clear, China also took more discreet measures and those are the types of measures that Bill C‑70 seeks to counter.

Russia is saber rattling to mask its decline. China is in the final stages of its big project to transform an empire into a country. They are both projecting their power and need to weaken international resistance, hence the interference campaigns abroad, including in Canada. We need the necessary antibodies to prepare ourselves and to guard against that.

The second reason, in addition to the international situation, is the national situation. I am going to share a secret: Do not tell anyone, but an election is coming. I do not know when, but it is coming. Sometimes the leader of the NDP does this funny dance before he grovels or goes into bravado mode. His rhetoric suggests that there will be an election any day now. However, that is not the case. The reality is that we do not know for sure, but it could happen at any time. I am just joking around with my NDP friends, of course.

On election day, the politicians keep quiet and the citizens do the talking. For that to happen, in order for citizens to speak freely, they cannot be targeted by pressure or interference. That is what democratic expression is all about. That said, an election is the ideal time for interference. It can be tempting for a foreign actor to try to replace a hawk with a dove, for example. It is therefore essential that we develop tools for countering foreign interference before the election period, and time is running out.

The third reason is the legislative situation. Canada does not currently have the antibodies to fight off the virus of foreign interference. There is no foreign agent registry, for example, and the various laws governing the operation of the intelligence agencies date back 40 years, before the digital age. Some of our members were not even born yet.

Those laws do not make it possible to analyze the huge amount of information that can be gathered today and process it within a useful time frame. Those laws do a poor job of protecting secret operational intelligence. Those laws do not adequately protect people against threats or intimidation by foreign states. The rules of the justice system have not struck a balance that allows for prosecution, a fair trial and the protection of sensitive intelligence. All of this is what Bill C‑70 seeks to correct. That is why we support it in principle.

In practical terms, Bill C‑70 amends four acts. Part 1 amends the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, which governs the organization better known as CSIS. The amendments clarify data collection and analysis, provide for preservation and production orders, and authorize new search and seizure powers. David Vigneault, director of CSIS, has long been calling for the act's modernization. It was enacted in 1984, before the Internet existed, and has not been amended since. Technology has obviously evolved, and such a legislative change is long overdue. According to David Vigneault, too many authorizations are required, including the approval of the Minister of Public Safety, to analyze the data and decide whether to retain, process or archive them.

In fact, here is the government's description of the Kafkaesque current process:

The totality of this process could require up to five separate submissions for review by the Minister, Intelligence Commissioner, and/or the Court, resulting in a delay of up to six to nine months before CSIS can exploit the data, by which time its intelligence value may have diminished significantly. If CSIS cannot evaluate and apply to retain the dataset within the statutory time limit, it is required to destroy all the data.

It could take six to nine months, but information can be sent instantaneously. Something is not right there. I would remind the House that the election period lasts five weeks. A six- to nine-month delay is not very helpful. That is not all. Currently, CSIS cannot share intelligence outside the federal government. Bill C‑70 would allow that, which is very good. Once the bill comes into force, the provinces, municipalities and territories will be able to receive certain information.

Imagine for a moment that Hydro‑Québec is the victim of foreign interference or espionage. CSIS could disclose certain information to Hydro‑Québec to help the publicly owned corporation protect its critical information. The same goes for warrants under the current CSIS legislation, which are not adapted to the digital age and can sometimes paralyze investigations.

All these aspects of Bill C‑70 seem to be good ideas. We will have to look at it carefully in committee, because the devil is in the details.

We know that total security would require total surveillance. I do not think that we want to go that far.

The restrictions and silos that are paralyzing CSIS, and that this government wants to relax, are there for a reason. Much of this stems from the work of the McDonald commission that examined the RCMP's actions during the October crisis in Quebec. Members will recall the events of October 1970. We certainly remember. The federal government had imprisoned hundreds of people in Quebec, including politicians, intellectuals and artists, causing a true national trauma. In order for the federal government to regain Quebeckers' trust, the Mulroney government replaced the War Measures Act with the Emergencies Act, which had much stricter limits. It eliminated the RCMP's intelligence role with the creation of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS. In doing so, it created a wall between intelligence and law enforcement, so as to limit abuses. Now these safeguards are preventing us from combatting foreign interference, and we are being asked to relax them. Okay, we understand that.

I repeat, the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑70 in principle, but not at the cost of civil liberties. This is an absolutely fundamental issue that demands the utmost vigilance on the part of legislators. We are in favour of passing the bill quickly at second reading, but we would be remiss if we did not conduct a serious study in committee. This must not be rushed through.

I would remind the House that the inefficiencies of the current legislation were designed to protect the people of Quebec from the excesses of the federal government. In light of the current rise in international tensions and the aggressiveness of certain countries, we must not diminish the protection our people enjoy from potential government abuses. Therefore, our work must be guided by a search for balance.

Bill C‑70 also protects certain operational secrets. Again, this is a necessary safeguard against foreign states with hostile intentions. We should not weaken our democracy in the name of protecting it. We saw this happen with the Winnipeg lab incident and, 15 years ago, with the Afghan detainees.

It is very difficult for Parliament to exercise the oversight that it must exercise when it requires access to classified information, not to mention frequent overclassification—as we saw with the Winnipeg lab—which makes sometimes innocuous information secret and hard to obtain. Even the Hogue commission, which was set up to shed light on foreign interference and help counter it, has complained that it did not have access to all the documents it requested because the Prime Minister's Office was reluctant to release them.

Morever, Bill C-70 seeks to better equip the justice system to fight foreign interference, so this bill sets out new offences that cover a broader range of harmful acts. It sets out new procedures that we hope will make it possible to prosecute offences, grant a fair trial and protect intelligence that would be harmful if disclosed.

Again, we are in favour of this in principle. However, these are fundamental issues of justice, and our work must be guided by a quest for balance. I repeat that a lot, because it is very important.

Bill C‑70 will also eliminate the requirement to prove that a criminal act benefited a foreign state or harmed Canada. Simply put, intimidation by a foreign state could become punishable, even if it does not produce the desired result. We are talking about attempts here. That means it will be possible to charge people who intimidate Canadian citizens or their families. People who are originally from totalitarian countries are particularly vulnerable.

Bill C‑70 also provides for consecutive sentences and even life imprisonment for certain offences. I understand the desire to impose harsher sentences, but listen to what the Canadian Civil Liberties Association had to say. It said, and I quote:

The availability of life imprisonment for certain offences introduced under Bill C‑70 is disproportionate and excessive. For example, a person convicted of an indictable offence under the Criminal Code, even as minimal as theft under $5,000, could be sentenced to life in prison if they acted for the benefit of a foreign entity.

I could cite numerous other examples of measures that will need to be closely scrutinized before they are approved or allowed to come into force.

I will end my speech by talking about the foreign agent registry. This registry should have been created a long time ago. The United States created theirs in 1930. Everyone agrees that a registry alone will not prevent foreign interference, but it is an essential tool to have in our tool box. The director of CSIS has said that a registry would be very useful. The European Union is currently working on a transparency register, and there are registries in other countries too. With a registry, it is easier to demonstrate that someone is working on behalf of a foreign state than to prove that the state interfered. Refusal to join the registry would become an offence in itself and it would be easier to punish than the crime of interference.

I am therefore pleased that the government is moving forward with the registry. It will improve the identification of people trying to influence public policy and of persons acting on behalf of a foreign state. I have spent a lot of time studying this topic. In fact, I drafted a bill to create this registry and I was about to introduce it before Bill C‑70 was tabled. However, the registry put forward in Bill C‑70 has gaps that I would like to try to fill in committee.

For example, although foreign agents are required to register, public office holders are not required to declare their interactions with foreign agents. The two-party registration of foreign agents and public office holders would allow for more thorough checks and enhance the registry's effectiveness. Furthermore, foreign agents have to report their contact with certain categories of people, but the list is too narrow to protect things like government-funded research activities, for example. In short, at committee stage, I intend to propose an expansion of the registry's scope to improve its effectiveness.

As a final point, I would like to take a closer look at the very concept of interference. Let us imagine, for example, that a foreign state sent a bunch of people to fill the room during a nomination to influence the choice of candidate. The foreign state would not have intervened directly with the government to influence public policy, but it would have obviously intervened in public political life. Would that situation be covered by the registry? I doubt it.

Another example is the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg. The Chinese agents working there had no desire to influence public policy. Rather, they wanted to monopolize the fruits of research paid for by Canadian taxpayers. Does Bill C-70 protect us from that? I doubt it.

I will conclude with a bit of a broader reflection. Protecting our constituents against interference is a profoundly democratic act. People have the right to control their political life and their social, economic and cultural development. This expression of democracy, which must be exercised freely, without undue pressure or interference, is fundamental to peoples' right to decide for themselves and assert their inalienable right to self-determination.

In committee, we will have disagreements on this or that clause of Bill C‑70, but I think that all the members of the House are united on the need to protect the inalienable right of the Canadian people to control their development without foreign interference. Under Bill C‑70, foreign states will be required to respect that right and stop interfering.

As long as we are requiring respect from others, we need to be honest about being respectful ourselves. Twenty-nine years ago, my people, the people of Quebec, were called to democratically exercise their own right to self-determination in a referendum on independence. What happened? Canada, the federal government, spent more on its campaign than the Yes and No camps combined in Quebec. That is serious interference. I am pleased to see that everyone in the House is, I note, unanimous in agreeing that interference in a people's choice is not good. We are making progress. We are getting somewhere.

I hope that the desire to protect Canadian democracy from foreign interference will engender the same respect for Quebec's democracy, because my people also need to be able to experience their democracy without interference.

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

Madam Speaker, they are encouraging words from the Conservatives, and now from the Bloc, in terms of just how important it is that, collectively, as a group of elected parliamentarians, we have a responsibility not only to bring forward the legislation but also, as much as possible, to work together so that we can all get behind the legislation. The timing of it is of great importance. I am sure the member would also acknowledge that. International foreign interference is happening. It is very real and tangible. We all know that.

I would like to get the member's thoughts on a question I posed to the official opposition critic. Are there any amendments that he can think of, offhand, realizing we have not had the legislation for long, that he would like considered?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Winnipeg North for his question. He always asks good questions.

Earlier, in my speech, I mentioned two-party registration, which I feel is a proven method. It has not been used for foreign agent registries, but it has for other registries. It allows for verification. If a foreign agent is not registered and the public office holder is registered, the discrepancy will be noticed. It would make the system more efficient. Two-party registration is a good thing from the word go.

I have a few comments to make on the independence of the interference commissioner. I would like us to work on that a little. I understand the organizational efficiency requirements, but at the same time, it makes me a little uncomfortable.

I think the scope of the legislation could be extended to universities that receive federal funding. In fact, I would like to be able to say that we can prevent what happened at the Winnipeg lab and that we can prevent the whole discussion we had to have about the Trudeau Foundation. I am not blaming anyone. I am only giving an example. However, I would like us to be able to avoid this sort of thing and, right now, I am not sure that the registry in its current form lends itself to this type of management.

I think we will have to work together to at least settle those things in advance. People seem to be very willing to work together.

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

Madam Speaker, with respect to the foreign influence registry, there are many details left to be determined by way of regulation, including with respect to setting out exactly what the scope of the administrative penalties would be that the commissioner could issue, as well as with respect to the contents of what one must disclose upon registering.

Does the member have concerns about the lack of some of those details being incorporated into the legislation and being left to regulation, or does he see it as a good thing?

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

Madam Speaker, a number of things are missing from the bill.

The first thing I will bring up has nothing to do with the individual, but rather the profile of the interference commissioner. Do we want a judge, like we do for the ethics commissioner? Do we want a legal expert? Do we want an ethicist? One never knows. What is the profile we are looking for? These things will be determined later, by regulation. I trust in that and I do not see any issue with it, but many details are still to be determined.

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

Madam Speaker, as usual, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague.

Last year, the NDP moved a motion to establish the Hogue commission to counter foreign interference. Every party except one supported that motion. We participated in negotiations all summer. We negotiated in good faith and it led to the implementation of the Hogue commission, led by Justice Hogue. Most of these elements were established by consensus.

I want to ask my colleague a question about the importance of all of the political parties working together. It is important that, rather than seeking partisan advantage, we really try to implement the best legislation possible, to implement the best tools to counter foreign interference. We must all work together, use the abilities of every member of the House and every recognized political party to create a bill that we can be proud of and that gives us all of the important tools without any shortcomings.

Does my colleague agree with that?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very relevant question.

I do think we need to work together. Foreign interference is not a partisan issue, nor does it concern the colour of the government in power. It concerns greed, power and interference itself. Therefore, I think it is crucial that we work together. When we look at an issue like interference and sum up the activity, it becomes clear that there are more things that bring us together here than divide us.

I would like us to focus on what brings us together so that we can develop the best possible tool to protect ourselves from foreign interference.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague from Trois-Rivières for his excellent speech. It is always a pleasure to listen to him. It is like a university lecture condensed into a speech, and we keep coming back for more. It is a nice change from some other speeches that tend to be more vague, with watered-down points.

Canada's national security policy dates back to 2004. This policy does not even include the words “China” and “Russia”. The government wants to counter foreign interference while being manipulated. I think the government is going about it the wrong way, which demonstrates the need to update the national security policy specifically for the purpose of countering foreign interference.

My colleague mentioned the issue of naivety, which clearly no longer applies to this government now that it has introduced Bill C‑70. However, there is the issue of transparency. When it was elected in 2015, the Liberal government promised to be transparent. With the Hogue commission, we are not seeing any transparency from the government of the day.

I would like my colleague from Trois-Rivières to explain the importance and necessity of having a transparent government when it comes to releasing documents to ensure public confidence in democratic institutions in order to counter foreign interference.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his extremely relevant question. There can be no trust without transparency, and nothing is possible without trust. Let that be our starting point.

In the past, whether it was Mr. Johnston, the special rapporteur, or the Hogue commission, it certainly took a lot of effort to get the government to co-operate. It really took a lot of force and a lot of energy, and the government fought the process tooth and nail. That was unfortunate. It did not inspire trust.

As my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby said, these matters require co-operation. There can be no hypocrisy. We have to pull in the same direction, because interference is oblivious to party colours and partisanship. Interference works against all of us here, regardless of our political stripe.

This time, I hope and believe that the government will be a little less naive and more proactive, and that it will show the transparency we need to make fair decisions amid uncertainty.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I serve with the member for Trois-Rivières on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. I can say that he is well respected and hard-working.

I am concerned that this bill will not be passed before the next election. Does the member for Trois-Rivières agree with me, my Conservative colleagues and the members of all but one of the other parties that we need to pass this bill quickly, before the next election?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Barrie—Innisfil, with whom it is always a pleasure to work.

I have to say that I was not aware of the details of how the motion was drafted. I have read it, but I was not involved in its creation. However, it is essential that this legislation come into force before the next election. That is why we are prepared to put a lot of energy into it and put other projects on hold in order to move forward and be there. Yes, the law must be implemented before the next election.

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

Madam Speaker, I would first like to say that the NPD supports this bill at second reading. During my speech, I am going to propose a motion that all of the parties agreed on, in the hopes that everyone will act in good faith and adopt it. I will move this important motion about halfway through my speech.

As people know, the NDP worked hard when we learned about the allegations of foreign interference. Our leader, the member for Burnaby South, was the first to raise this issue in February 2023. He asked the government to establish an independent public commission of inquiry into foreign interference. The NDP first moved that motion at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and it was adopted. The NDP then moved the motion in the House and it was again adopted. Unfortunately, the government chose instead to appoint a special rapporteur on foreign interference.

Members will recall what happened next. On an opposition day, the NDP moved a motion that called on the government to remove the special rapporteur and establish an independent public commission of inquiry. This motion was adopted in Parliament by four of the five parties. It was supported by every party except for one. A few days later, the special rapporteur, who is an honest Canadian, worthy of his name and reputation, realized that most parliamentarians did not agree with the approach proposed by the government and so he stepped down. Then, all of the recognized parties in the House initiated discussions and negotiations in good faith. At the end of the summer of 2023, Justice Hogue was chosen to lead the the public inquiry into foreign interference.

This shows that when we work in good faith we can make things happen. That is what we would like to see today. We would like to see all parties to work in good faith and adopt the motion we are presenting. This motion already has the support of all the parties. It should be said that it is a motion that will require a second motion in a few days.

In principle, we would like the bill to pass second reading. I do not think that anyone is against the idea of then asking the parliamentary committee studying the bill to welcome all the necessary witnesses as early as next week in order to advance this bill. We all agree that this bill must be passed before the next election.

All it would take to adopt this motion to allow the bill to be referred to a committee is the goodwill of all members. We will test that in a few minutes.

In a few minutes, I will be raising the motion that we have agreed to. It means the public safety committee would be called upon to hear witnesses next week, and it would have priority for resources, which is important. Following that testimony, we will look at the bill, which we all support in principle. Obviously, members want to hear from various witnesses, as they can make a difference, of course, to the amendments that may be needed for the bill. Then we can proceed with the second UC in the coming days.

There is a really clear path, again with good faith. That is what the NDP hopes to see in a few minutes.

We know about the bill. We know that there are four parts to it, and we believe that it needs—