Parliamentary Committee Notes: Second reading & Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security (SECU) Pre-Study Summary
Bill C-70, An Act Respecting Countering Foreign Interference
Purpose
This note contains information on the perspectives and positions of political parties in relation to Bill C-70, An Act Respecting Countering Foreign Interference, as expressed in the Second Reading and SECU pre-study, May 29 and May 30, respectively.
Background
On May 6, 2024, the House of Commons introduced Bill C-70, An Act Respecting Countering Foreign Interference. Second reading commenced on May 29, 2024, and the motion was discussed by all parties and debated in the House, but did not receive unanimous consent. A more limited unanimous consent motion agreed by the House was subsequently adopted and referred to SECU, which held pre-study for the Bill on May 30, 2024. Study of Bill C-70 will continue on Monday, June 3, 2024.
Issues raised by party
There was participation from a range of Members of Parliament throughout the sessions on the proposed bill, all offering a high range of support. Alongside the Liberals, the Conservatives, the New Democratic Party, and Bloc Quebecois all expressed interest in moving the Bill forward and amending the Bill while it is in the Committee Stage as required.
General themes repeatedly raised by Parliamentarians in the Second Reading include: 1) general recognition that this type of legislation is urgently needed and Parliamentarians are willing to move this Bill through the House in time for the 2025 election; and 2) Further amendments are needed, including as it relates to the independence of the Transparency Commissioner and the potential need to increase registration obligations for certain individuals.
General themes brought forward in the SECU pre-study consist of the following: 1) whether legislation can be implemented before the next federal election, and the independence of the new Transparency Commissioner; 2) concerns on whether this legislation may further victimize specific individuals; 4) whether past incidents could have been avoided under proposed legislation and the effectiveness of existing laws; and 5) the threshold for triggering a registration obligation.
The summary for both the Second Reading Debate and SECU pre-study below is grouped by political party, with some overlap on issues.
Liberal Party of Canada (LPC)
In the SECU pre-study on 30 May, 2024, LPC member questions centered on the following topics: 1) the expansion of warrant capabilities and Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) efforts to build trust with minority communities; 2) steps being taken to address privacy concerns and to ensure data is reliable before use; 3) concerns from Canadian communities and efforts to ensure they would not be victimized; 4) operational gaps addressed by the CSIS Act amendments; 5) lessons learned from similar legislation in allied countries; 6) the regulatory framework underpinning the Foreign Influence Transparency Registry; 7) the five-year Parliament review; 8) the penalties for non-compliance; 9) defining arrangements between an individual and a foreign state, and intelligence operations required to establish a connection to a foreign entity; and 10) the first case of foreign influence tried in Australia under their FI legislation.
Conservative Party of Canada (CPC)
The CPC’s position has been generally supportive of this type of legislation. On May 28, 2024, Conservative foreign affairs critic, MP Michael Chong, released a letter sent to the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs in support of Bill C-70. In this letter, he stated:
“As the general election draws closer, time is running out to strengthen the confidence Canadians have in our elections. For this reason, Conservatives are proposing to move a unanimous consent motion at the end of the debate at second reading, that if adopted, will allow the expeditious passage of Bill C-70 through the House of Commons and through committee, allowing sufficient time to implement safeguards against foreign interference 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 the bill’s measures.”
In Second Reading on May 29, 2024, MP Chong reaffirmed these views and highlighted the importance of acting on the issue of foreign interference, citing the outcomes of the Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference, led by Justice Hogue, which illustrates the extent of the problem of foreign interference in the Canadian context.
The CPC’s criticism of the Bill centered on perceived delays in introducing legislation despite advice from the national security and intelligence community.
The CPC noted an interest in revisiting the definition of essential infrastructure in the Criminal Code portion of the Bill, and suggested that leaders of all parties might have input into the selection of the Transparency Commissioner proposed in Part 4 of the Bill. The CPC expressed an interest in seeing the bill pass third reading in the House by June 12, 2024.
In the SECU pre-study, CPC questioning focused on the following themes: 1) implementation timelines for the Foreign Influence Transparency Registry following Royal Assent, including whether the Registry would be in place before the next election; 2) whether a requirement for approval – rather than a consultation – by Parliament of the Transparency Commissioner would improve the independence of this position; 3) the activities of the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office in Canada; 4) whether Ministerial consent would be required for CSIS to advise targeted MPs of threats targeting them; 5) the requirement of Attorney General for SOIA investigations; 6) the one year delay and Order-in-Council requirement for the Registry coming into force; 7) thresholds for registration as it relates to the disbursement of funds; 8) the consultation process for the regulations; 9) the definition of ‘public office holder’ and the non-inclusion of appointees of provincial cabinet and members of provincial boards or agencies as part of this definition; 10) whether the sabotage offence would apply to the planning or construction of infrastructure; and 11) steps that could be taken to protect individual’s political beliefs from foreign interference.
Bloc Québécois
The BQ were broadly supportive of sending the Bill to Committee. However, the BQ also noted that improvements could be made while in Committee, including proposed amendments such as a prohibiting Canada’s former public office holders from working for foreign governments and a requirement for dual registration.
The BQ focused their questioning in the SECU pre-study on the following: 1) why the bill would require “double registration” under the Registry rather than deconfliction; 2) the consequences for individuals not registering; 3) whether the incident at the Winnipeg Microbiology Lab would have been captured under a Foreign Influence Transparency Registry; 4) the candidate profile for the Transparency Commissioner; 5) how to ensure the independence of the Transparency Commissioner; 6) whether universities would be required to register.
New Democratic Party (NDP)
The NDP will support the bill and indicated an eagerness to commence pre-study at SECU. While NDP leader Jagmeet Singh noted a desire to see Bill C-70 pass through the House of Commons quickly, the NDP did not support a CPC motion to speed up its passage. MP Allistair MacGregor noted that the CSIS Act dataset provisions follow a “fairly scathing” National Security and Intelligence Review Agency (NSIRA) report which expressed concerns of CSIS’ previous handling of datasets. MP MacGregor also expressed concern that those who engage in malign foreign influence or foreign interference more broadly are unlikely to comply with the proposed Foreign Influence Transparency Registry. In response, the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs indicated that the prosecution of malicious actors, the challenges of turning intelligence into evidence, and penalties associated with non-compliance might be topics worth discussing at SECU.
In the SECU pre-study, the NDP questioned witnesses on 1) Canada’s success using existing laws to lay charges and convict; 2) the definition of “arrangement” in Part 4 and what it means to be “in association” with a foreign principal; 3) NSIRA’s report on CSIS’ data set regime and mechanisms to address non-compliance with the CSIS Act; 3) thresholds triggering a registration requirement under the Registry; and 4) harmonization of definitions between the respective Acts contained in Bill C-70.
- Date modified: