Debates of June 12th, 2024

Countering Foreign Interference Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry. I must allow time for another brief question.

The hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

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

Madam Speaker, in part 4 of the bill, which sets up the public registry, one of the key features of the registry is that it is country agnostic. In other words, Canadians would be able to see how all countries' foreign principals are trying to exert influence in Canada, and not only our adversaries, but also our friends and allies.

Can my hon. colleague comment on that feature of the registry, the fact that it is country agnostic, and how that lends itself to accountability and transparency for Canadians to see?

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

Madam Speaker, it would require people who are conducting legitimate influence activities on behalf of a foreign government or an entity associated with that foreign government to register. It provides a deterrent for those who would not register and who would conduct illegitimate, coercive, clandestine and corrupt foreign interference activities in Canada, and so I think it strikes a balance. It would be a useful tool to strengthen Parliament and to strengthen our general elections.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Climate Change; the hon. member for Kitchener Centre, Persons with Disabilities; the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, Carbon Pricing.

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

Madam Speaker, I cannot begin my speech without thanking the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. Without him, many of these issues would not be on our radar. He led the way. I should also say, by the way, that he basically gave the speech I wanted to give.

Soon there will be a new law. We all agree that it was necessary. It is a good law. Is it a great law? I am not so sure. Is it excellent? I am really not sure. In other words, this is the kind of law I applaud, but with only one hand.

This was an intense exercise undertaken in a very short period of time. The process included reviews of a number of laws, including some that amend the Criminal Code. There is no doubt that the need to get the legislation in place before the next election sometimes took precedence over the desire for a more in-depth or thorough reflection. Decisions were made by reflex rather than reflection in this case. At the same time, we have to be careful, knowing that this is a very serious issue. We are not doing this just for the sake of doing it.

I will briefly sum up the bill because it amends four acts. Part 1 amends the Canadian Security Intelligence Act with respect to data collection. Part 2 amends the Security of Information Act to add new criminal offences. Part 3 amends the Canada Evidence Act. Part 4 creates the foreign agent registry, to ensure transparency, of course.

Again, it is good legislation, but getting to this point has been tough. There have been several reports over the years. There was the Rosenberg report. There were CSIS alerts before that. Then there was the special rapporteur who claimed to be independent. Finally, there was the Hogue commission, which all four parties unanimously chose to engage with in order to shed light on this situation. Actually, it is more than a situation. It has become its own world.

What disappointed me when we got to that point was just seeing the culture of avoidance that is typical of the Liberal Party. If there is a problem, they close their eyes, turn away and pretend it is not there anymore. This culture of avoidance has caused major problems for us today, because while the Liberals were avoiding solving the problem, it was getting worse. Foreign interference is here today, it exists and it is still happening, even as we speak.

Still, there are elements to consider. Of course, the recent NSICOP report was a wake-up call for everyone. However, these revelations are the sum total of years' worth of observations. On April 30, the parties held a press conference, again nearly unanimously, with members of the diaspora here in the lobby of the House. On that occasion, I myself disclosed the fact that the Bloc Québécois was preparing a registry of foreign agents. Suddenly, as if by magic, Bill C-70 appeared. I think we kind of helped avoid the avoidance.

Still, when the bill was being studied, the Bloc Québécois had a few amendments to propose. There were not many, because, as I said before, the substance of the legislation is good. We presented a few points, four of which I am going to discuss here. The first had to do with what is known as two-party registration, meaning that both the foreign principal and the public office holder must register. That makes it possible to establish the relationship between the two. Obviously, if only the foreign principal registers, we have to take his or her word about who is at the other end. I do not think that is practical. I think the registry would have been simpler and more effective if it included two-party registration. Unfortunately, the public servants told us that it was a bit too complicated. However, we were studying the issue of foreign interference. To say that something is a bit too complicated is hardly an acceptable response. Considering the scope of the threat, I think that saying this would be too complicated is wrong.

We also wanted the legislation to apply to universities and Crown corporations. I must say that the universities were not enthusiastic about the idea. I think that certain foreign countries have a significant influence when it comes to research funding. Obviously, that amendment was not accepted. We also proposed a cooling-off period. The funny thing is that when we were discussing the amendment in question and the chair ruled it inadmissible, I could tell from the look on their faces that so many people were thinking about their post-election future. That made me smile.

I believe that a cooling-off period is part of the culture in the business world. These are people who do not give anything for nothing. It is smart to say that a foreign country may want to invest in someone as a public office holder, but they cannot be there for three years. I think that would have provided extra protection.

The crux of the matter is the independence of the commissioner. The commissioner will definitely be independent, but not entirely, and that is a problem. It is a problem that was raised by CSIS and several witnesses. During a study on interference at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, several witnesses pointed out that if the commissioner is not independent, that is a problem. The commissioner will come under the Department of Public Safety. I am not suggesting that there was any bad faith, but I would have preferred the commissioner to be truly independent.

Whenever we talk about independence, I get the impression that the Liberal Party has a hard time with that term. I know that it is generally not fond of it. It had a hard time with the independent rapporteur. It had a hard time with the independent commissioner, too. As for Quebec's independence, we had better not discuss it. These amendments were rejected by the Liberals and the Conservatives. That bothers me a bit, because we had a common understanding of this bill. These four suggestions sought to amend and improve it.

However, we did manage to make one important improvement. The bill provided for a review of the act every five years, and we were able to change that to have the act reviewed one year after an election. When there is a minority government, like the one we have had for the past little while, there can be two or three elections in five years. We therefore had to move faster because the threat, like technology, is ahead of us. I think it would be rather foolish not to take note of the threat that is ahead of us.

One thing that is quite funny about the bill is that it is entitled the “Countering Foreign Interference Act”, but it does not define foreign interference. What is foreign interference? It is when one nation interferes in the affairs of another nation. It is as simple as that.

It would have taken courage to accept the suggestions I put forward earlier. I was told that it was complicated, expensive, and many other things. That said, let us not forget that interference costs us billions of dollars a year. Courage can be a real issue at times. I am not saying there was no courage in this case, just not enough. That is not the same thing. “Reason and respect make livers pale and lustihood deject”, as Shakespeare wrote in Troilus and Cressida. I think we would do well to take a lesson in courage from some of our predecessors.

There is no definition of foreign interference in the bill. In my opinion, we have to name it, or it does not exist. Naming it gives it meaning.

In the same vein, I want to touch on the motion that was adopted yesterday, almost unanimously. The Bloc Québécois motion asked Commissioner Hogue to look into the recent revelations in the NSICOP report.

We cannot dissociate these two elements because we are talking about foreign interference in both cases. I was pleased to see that, in light of this major threat, the House showed a lot of courage and decided to grab the bull by the horns, tackle the problem head-on and move forward.

In this case, I think that the decision made by the House yesterday was an honourable one. Unfortunately, Bill C-70 is somewhat lacking in ambition, and I am worried that that will come back to haunt us later.

Finally, there is the matter of overclassification. In the Winnipeg lab case, we saw that the redactions could have been reversed on many elements without harming national security. I always struggle with knowing that documents may have been overclassified.

I can say right away that the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑70. We will support it, but we will applaud it with only one hand, because it is not great, but it is better than nothing.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his work on the committee and for his speech today on this important bill. He spoke about the independence of the commissioner and some of the areas where he feels the bill could go further.

Would he not agree that, with the reviews after the election, as well as the five-year review of the CSIS Act that is now happening, there are opportunities for Parliament to continue this work, to allow the commissioner to be set up and to come forward with recommendations to this House with respect to areas that may need to be changed in the future, and that that flexibility has been built into this legislation?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question and for her work on the committee as well.

Of course, we had to start somewhere, but we can do better. We managed to ensure that the law will be reviewed after an election, so that should happen in the next two years or so. I think it will be a good opportunity to review certain elements.

I personally would have preferred to see those elements included from the outset, because I think they are fundamental. However, I can understand that decisions were made by reflex rather than reflection and it is better to have something than nothing at all. Still, I would have liked to aim for perfection, or at least aim a little higher. We had come up with some possible solutions, but those solutions were not even entertained in committee. They were thrown out after 30 seconds. I would have preferred the opposite.

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

Madam Speaker, according to the report of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, the budget of the United Front Work Department, which engages in foreign interference, is $2.6 billion U.S. per year. Furthermore, 23% of that budget is allocated to foreign interference targeting every country of the world, including Canada.

What does my colleague think about the fact that China has such a large budget to spend on foreign interference here, in Canada?

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague's questions are always relevant. The scale is plain to see. Concerning some of the proposed amendments, we were told that they would cost too much, even though the other side is spending $2.6 billion. Of course, the amount is disproportionate, which is exactly why it demands our careful attention.

It is funny, because people wonder what purpose Chinese interference serves. Its purpose is to create chaos. Chaos is what we have been witnessing here for a while now, because we have been dealing with that for a long time, primarily because the government is dragging its feet.

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

Madam Speaker, part of the NSICOP report's conclusions was that Canada is a “low-risk, high reward” place to operate in, so it is obvious that we need to meet this moment with these legislative safeguards.

I want to ask the member about the first part of the bill, the updates to the CSIS Act, because the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency came out with a pretty scathing review of how CSIS has handled its datasets, and we would do important upgrades here to bring what is essentially an analog law up to speed in a digital era.

Can the member talk about some of the safeguards that we would put into place with this legislation and the updates that we would put in place to make sure that CSIS is no longer violating the statute that it operates by?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question and especially for his work, which he always does with openness and compassion.

It used to be that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS, acted alone and could not communicate with the other agencies. It acted alone and was its own master in a way. It ensured its own accountability.

I believe that sharing information with the other services will nonetheless contribute to limiting the actions of CSIS because it will not be alone in self-regulation. It will have to be accountable to the other agencies. I believe that simply sharing will contribute to improving the situation that, admittedly, relied on secrecy.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to join my colleagues and share a few remarks on Bill C-70, a bill that I have become intimately familiar with over the last couple of weeks, given that I am a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Of course, that committee was seized with this bill last week, where we had meetings over four days, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of last week, with extended hours so that we could hear from witnesses, because of a programming motion from the House. I think that programming motion, and the fact that we have seen all parties in this place, usually a pretty partisan environment, put those differences aside to come together, I think underscores how important this legislation is and the realization from all political parties that this is a moment in time in Canadian history when we must meet the challenge united and with a clear purpose, because the threat is certainly there.

To put it into context, last week, of course, the report from NSICOP, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, landed with the force of a bomb and, of course, has been dominating the news cycle ever since. I will not talk about the allegations toward members of Parliament in that report. I think the other parts of the report that are especially pertinent to tonight's debate are the fact that NSICOP has found, through its briefings with intelligence officials, that our intelligence community feels that our foreign adversaries regard Canada as a “low-risk, high reward” place in which to operate and pursue their strategic objectives. There are a number of reasons for this. That same report was also quite scathing of the Liberal government's response to the dire circumstances surrounding foreign interference: too little, too late.

That aside, we are at this moment and we do have Bill C-70 before us. It is important to understand that the bill has some pretty consequential amendments to existing statutes while also setting up a stand-alone law.

It is important to remember that when we are talking about foreign interference, it can be broadly separated into the interference or influence that we see publicly, coming not only from our adversaries but also from our allies, and the malicious and very pernicious aspect of foreign interference, which is the parts that happen in a clandestine way, the parts that are deceptive and underhanded, where adversaries are trying to use all tools at their disposal to influence how our democracy functions, sometimes to cause chaos, sometimes to pursue strategic objectives. It really depends on the circumstances and the country involved.

While we have had a slow response from the Liberal government, it is also very clear that our outdated national security laws are not up to the challenge of meeting that threat as they are currently written. I have used the phrase a couple of times over the last few days, as well as today, that essentially many of our laws were created in an analog era and that we need to bring them up to speed to meet the threat in what is a digital era. That is a big part of what Bill C-70 does.

What is in Bill C-70? The bill is divided into four parts. Part 1 deals with amendments to the CSIS Act. Many of those are in response to a pretty scathing report from NSIRA, which showed that CSIS has regularly broken its own statute's legislative guidelines in how it handles datasets. Again, when that law was crafted, back in 1984, the most advanced piece of technology in people's offices was probably a fax machine. We are a far cry from those days.

I think the other really consequential amendment to the CSIS Act is that it is now going to equip CSIS with the ability to share information with other interested parties, with parties that have a need to know some of this information. Under current laws, CSIS is very constrained in how it can share information. Again, if we are going to counter this threat with the seriousness it deserves, we need to equip our agencies with the tools that allow them to share this information.

Part 2 is also a very consequential update to the Security of Information Act. This part of the bill is really targeting the deceptive, clandestine nature of foreign interference. We all know that violations of any provision of the Security of Information Act come with hefty penalties, and in the bill before us, they are also there, because it underscores, again, how serious a nature these offences are. So, there are offences now for any foreign principals who are using violence, intimidation or threats to pursue strategic interests at the direction of, or in association with, a foreign principal, and there are hefty penalties going after anyone who is trying to influence governmental or legislative processes. Those are all spelled out in the Security of Information Act. Again, this is the part of the bill that is designed to go after the foreign interference that is not publicly known about, that is not going to be affected by the registry, which comes later on in the bill.

In part 4, there are also important updates to the Canada Evidence Act to really try to streamline the process. Evidence is often of a very sensitive nature and, again, we have heard a lot over the last two weeks of the gulf that exists between intelligence and evidence. However, when intelligence gets to a point where it can be used as evidence, we still need to handle it in a very secure way, and in a way that does not expose where our sources are, because, of course, that is of national interest to our country.

However, part 4, I think, is probably the part that has gotten the most attention in the bill. It would set up a registry so that we would have more accountability and transparency. It would be country agnostic, an important part to underline in this, so that even people who are working on the direction of, or in association with, friends and allies of Canada would still have to register if they are communicating with elected officials and if they are trying to influence some type of governmental process. It involves elected officials at the federal, provincial and municipal levels, and also with indigenous governments and organizations.

It is an important part, and I think the country agnostic feature of the bill is also important. Canadians definitely have an interest in how our adversaries are behaving here on Canadian soil. We would like to see those persons registered, but we might also have a very legitimate interest to see how our friends and allies are operating here on Canadian soil, because we would be deluding ourselves if we did not think that our friends and allies, in some way or another, are trying to influence how Canada makes its decisions, which has been a part of statecraft ever since there were states.

In the brief time that I have left, I realize that there still are concerns out there from some members of the community. I highlighted earlier the National Council of Canadian Muslims that has concerns about some of the aspects of the bill that are not very well defined. However, in my opinion, the bill does achieve a balancing act. Again, because of how dire the situation is with foreign interference, we need to meet this moment with a strong legislative response. I think that this is us, in the House of Commons, and later on in the Senate, but the Parliament of Canada as a whole, giving notice to our adversaries that their activities are now on our radar. We are aware of what they have been doing in Canada for quite some time now, and we are going to meet that challenge with a challenge of our own. This is really putting our cards on the table and showing people that we are serious about meeting this.

I am happy that there was a pretty collaborative effort at committee with amendments. The Bloc did not get all of the amendments that it wanted passed, neither did the NDP, but that is the way democracy works at committee. However, all in all, I am quite happy with the product that has been reported back to the House. I am glad to see that the House has come together to see the bill passed through by the end of tomorrow. I hope that the Senate will take the bill under way with the seriousness that it deserves.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his work at committee.

The member raised, toward the end of his speech, something that I care deeply about, that I know he shares, which is finding that balance. It would ensure that, as he said, we meet this moment. However, we then, through legislation, must ensure that we keep the right balance for protecting Canadians' rights. In this, we took great care and concern. We asked our officials as well to ensure that this legislation would still have the oversight and protections to ensure that it is not misused, that it is to deal with foreign interference and national security measures and not regular, normal, domestic politics.

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

Madam Speaker, a lot of my initial concerns with the bill, after I had the chance to speak with officials from Public Safety Canada, CSIS and the RCMP, were addressed. However I do have to admit that as a legislator, if the bill passes, I would be putting a lot of trust in the executive's hands. We can be very glad we have oversight bodies like NSICOP, NSIRA and the intelligence commissioner, because those are very important feedback loops to keep the agencies within the confines of the law they are operating under. Again, this is one small part I get to play in helping us as a country address foreign interference with the seriousness it deserves.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague's speeches are always insightful.

I mentioned earlier that some aspects of the bill could have gone a bit further. Many of our amendments were rejected. I say that without bitterness.

I would like to ask this of my colleague. His colleagues had proposed several amendments as well. What more would he have liked to include? What does he think would have added value to the bill?

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

Madam Speaker, there was one amendment in particular submitted by my colleague, the member for Vancouver East, who, of course, has been personally and negatively impacted by foreign interference. She wanted to see an enhanced tier added to the registry part of the bill, still keeping it country-agnostic, but having an additional tier where the government could place people who were of direct concern because of the activities they were carrying out that were really quite harmful to the interests of Canada.

Having an enhanced tier would have strengthened the bill. Unfortunately, we did not get it passed. I know that my hon. colleague and the Bloc Québécois put forward a number of great amendments. One I particularly liked was giving public office holders a three-year window when they could not operate, but unfortunately that did not pass. Hopefully the Senate may take up some of our ideas. We shall see.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Madam Speaker, it was great to work with my colleague and get this thing done so quickly in our committee.

I want to bring up an issue and ask him what he thinks about it. One of the things we heard in committee was that implementation would to take quite a while. I wonder whether the member has any thoughts on that and if it were not implemented before the next election. We discussed this in committee, so I would like to know his thoughts.

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

Madam Speaker, for part 1, part 2 and part 3, the coming-into-force provisions would be 60 days after the bill receives royal assent, which is a fairly reasonable timeline.

What I think my colleague is alluding to is part 4, for which the coming into force would really be left up to a date determined by Governor in Council. If we do want to have a registry set up and operational, that, I would submit, is where time is of the essence.

Public safety officials were not able to comment specifically on what kind of time frame they would need, but I think they understand from the questioning they received from members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security that we treat the registry with seriousness and that we have high expectations of that.

Again, I hope the other place, the Senate, understands the urgency and passes the bill so it can land on the Governor General's desk in short order.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this place to speak to Bill C-70. A foreign influence registry is something we have wanted to have, but we also recognize that there are concerns that overbroad application of such a registry could in itself inadvertently result in stigmatization of diaspora communities within Canada. The bill needs to be carefully administered, and much of what remains of what we would be passing, in a breathtakingly expedited fashion, would be be left to further regulations.

There are still a lot of questions as the bill moves forward. I have to say that, having the right, as any member of this place did, to say no to unanimous consent, I could have insisted that we have greater study. I have to say that I wish we did have greater study, but there was the timing and the consensus, and I am always inspired when I see members across party lines work together, because we do not see it often enough.

I know that the member for Vancouver East in the NDP is working with the Conservative and very hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills. We are working together, as was the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, also a New Democrat, so I stand here today very pleased that we are going to see the bill pass into law, but I am increasingly unnerved by the number of groups that have approached all of us.

Certainly, as the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, I have received numerous concerns from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, from the National Council of Canadian Muslims and from Democracy Watch, and their points are important. However, especially given the climate in which we find ourselves and the numerous delays in implementing changes to actually confront foreign interference, we have perhaps moved too quickly.

I am going to say for the record that I feel concerned that a number of these concerns are quite valid. For instance, when we consider that in subsection 20(3), the penalties for violating the act, and we still have to deal with the fact that there is some vagueness in how we are describing the offences, can amount to as much as imprisonment for life, these are very serious consequences and have a potential for a charter violation problem, as identified by some of the lawyers and legal organizations that have reviewed the bill and are asking whether it was wise to so infringe on the time in committee.

The hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford mentioned some amendments that the NDP would have liked but the Bloc did not like, but that is how democracy works in committee. As Greens, we were given a very short window, so short that we were not able to submit amendments in time to even have them voted down, with the expedited fashion in which we have studied the bill.

I want to put on the record that we will continue to monitor it closely. There is an improvement, as mentioned, from the first reading version where the bill would have received parliamentary review five years after passage. It would now be much sooner. However, having made the decision that it was very important given the degree of efforts at foreign interference in this country, which are well documented, the expedited passage of the bill is important because we are increasingly aware of the threat.

I should pause to say we are increasingly aware of the threat because of some excellent work that has been done by colleagues from all parties in this place and the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. Their work is critical, and they have also been calling for measures such as those that are in Bill C-70.

As we go forward though in the development of regulations, and as the bill would be further implemented, let us be mindful that the bill has received precious little study. I think it is important to say that I do not think I have ever seen a bill with so many substantial changes to critical areas of law pass so very quickly as this one.

The concerns are also not just that the bill would have potentially charter-violating implications, as raised by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. I was also taken by the commentary from Democracy Watch that we have left too many loopholes. If we want to deal with foreign interference, why have we left it possible for such issues as a foreign agent's using lobbyists as proxies and slipping past some of the scrutiny that would apply in other contexts? There are a number of points that Democracy Watch has made in relation to loopholes that should be closed.

We are looking at concerns about the way in which the legislation would be rolled out. We do hope that it will receive royal assent and get through the Senate, but we have asked the Senate also to expedite it. Again, as much as I support implementing a foreign influence registry and keeping track of the activity of hostile governments, I am left disquieted by, and we must actually pay attention to, the fact that we have gone perhaps recklessly quickly in bringing the bill forward and getting it all the way through to third reading and over to the Senate.

That, I have to say, I am concerned about even though I had the ability to object, and one member's objecting ends unanimous consent. I did not want to take that step, but I want to put on the record that we are going to have to be very careful from here and take every opportunity to ensure that we are not violating charter rights and that we are not creating additional hazards for members of diaspora communities that we had not considered before we moved so very quickly.

Why are we concerned about foreign interference? Well, it is very clear that foreign interference, as in the case of the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills, has resulted in actual threats and intimidation of family members, things that any member of this place should not have to be concerned about as a Canadian citizen. Nor, for that matter, should a foreigner visiting our shores be concerned about them. We are not the only country, obviously, that is now recognizing that foreign governments interfere in our domestic affairs.

Recently, of course, reading over the report of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians put something back in mind. It was so long ago I had almost forgotten it, in 1983. It was European money that interfered in the Conservative Party leadership race in 1983, with Karlheinz Schreiber delivering a lot of cash to the anti-Joe Clark forces to secure a nomination more palatable to the forces from Europe providing that money, by nominating and electing Brian Mulroney as the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party.

That was 40 years ago, and we still have not closed that loophole, even with the legislation before us. We need to pay a lot of attention to how foreign governments interfere in our affairs.

I take the point from the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford and wish to agree that it is one of the bill's strengths that it would be agnostic as to whether a foreign government is one we like or one we do not like. It is important to ensure that Canadian democracy for Canadians operates in the interests of Canadians. We will obviously have to take more steps going forward, but certain countries rise up in our concerns based on CSIS concerns, based on our intelligence operations. Those countries we know; they are named and they are understood by us as being interested in undermining Canadian democracy.

However, Canadian democracy is also undermined if we ignore our own values, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We must make sure that we have not gone too far with draconian measures in an effort to ensure that we control foreign interference.

I know this speech reflects my ambivalence, and for that I apologize. I know that I am very pleased that we would have a foreign influence registry. I would like to ensure that it would be effective but also would not accidentally trespass into areas that we would later regret.

I thank my colleagues for the time to address these issues with regard to Bill C-70.

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

Madam Speaker, part 1 of the bill has pretty significant proposed upgrades to the CSIS Act, particularly with how CSIS handles its dataset regime. That is following a fairly scathing report from the NSIRA, which showed that CSIS had regularly broken its legislative guidelines with respect to datasets.

As legislators, we are being asked to put a fair amount of trust into the executive branch and our intelligence agencies. I have no doubt that they do great work.

However, is my hon. colleague satisfied that our existing accountability mechanisms, our oversight mechanisms, such as NSICOP, NSIRA and the intelligence commissioner, are sufficient enough to maybe avoid reading another NSIRA report about how CSIS has breached its statutory guidelines in a number of years?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, whenever we have a CSIS report that makes earth-shattering accusations, and parliamentarians assume CSIS is right, I always remember that CSIS is sometimes wrong. The accusations and information provided to members of cabinet in one era in this country told them that Maher Arar was a bad actor and that it was okay to allow extraordinary rendition, where he would be tortured in another country. CSIS is not always right, and we must ensure that we protect Canadians and those who are on our shores from the actions that occurred in such a dreadful episode as that. I am not sure that we have not left ourselves open to that happening again.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech in the House and her insights on the bill.

I want to ask the member about the provision to have the CSIS Act regularly reviewed every five years. Given that the legislation is almost 41 years old, one thing I always found challenging was the fact that there had not been a significant review to keep pace not only with the changing threat nature of foreign interference but also with security and privacy issues all around.

Could the member comment on the ability to review this important legislation?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is important to be able to have periodic reviews, but I will not forget what we had done in the Harper era, where we gave CSIS kinetic powers that it had not had before. That was a mistake, but we have left it that way.

The RCMP was supposed to act on intelligence; intelligence gathering was the exclusive job of CSIS. We still have silos in this country between intelligence gathering and law enforcement, and we need to break them down. We should also ensure that the executive branch does not have too much power over the way in which the intelligence and kinetic activities are orchestrated.

We need more parliamentary involvement, and I certainly think the work of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians is a welcome step forward in this direction.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of Bill C-70, an act respecting countering foreign interference, are deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Thursday, June 13, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:54 p.m., so we can begin Private Members' Business.