The Hon. the Speaker: Leave is not granted.

[Translation]

Hon. Tony Dean: Honourable senators, I’ll be brief. I’m going to add to comments already made about our colleague Senator Woo: No one can unravel complex and indecipherable statutes as well as our good friend there, and that’s a skill indeed. I’m grateful to Senator Woo for bringing these ideas and this proposal to our attention.

Senator Woo feels that the framing of the language, to put it simply, casts too wide a net. I think, from my reading and intention of this, that a registry is indeed intended to cast a wide net. That is its purpose. I think it has two purposes: to cast a wide net, to see what that net looks like and then to look at actors and individuals who may not have chosen to join the registry. It’s an interesting device and tool, and we see it used in other regulatory contexts.

The discussion about scope is critically important, and I’m glad that we’re having it. My own concern with this is that the solution to that as proposed by Senator Woo would narrow the scope of this and move too much in the other direction, if I can put it that way, and that we’d end up with a relatively small number of registrants, and one of the purposes of the registry would be defeated.

That’s a concern that I have, and for that reason I’m not inclined to support the amendment even though I find it painful to do that, I will admit.

As Senator Woo mentioned, there will be a commissioner. That commissioner, hopefully, will be appointed early, and we’ll have a role in that appointment. I suspect that commissioner will deal very quickly with issues like parliamentary travel and what I would call the extraneous group of concerns that have been raised about this, and they should be concerned, but I think they’re easily dealt with.

At the end of the day, my concern is what we would be left with if we were to adopt this and how that would operate within this scheme and its relationship with other elements of a complex of instruments that is being contemplated in terms of pushing foreign interference to the ground.

So there it is: it’s brief and straightforward, and I’ll leave it at that. Thank you, Senator Woo.

Hon. Denise Batters: Senator Gold, thank you for your speech on this. I have a few more legal points.

I think it’s actually a good thing that the phrase “in association with” is used in a major federal statute. Senator Woo provided an example of that from the Criminal Code, and you provided a few more. It’s also a good thing there is already federal case law, including the Supreme Court of Canada — as Senator Woo himself referenced — interpreting that phrase, “in association with.” There are likely other federal statutes other than the Criminal Code which probably also use the phrase “in association with.”

So using language which is contained in other statutes and has been well interpreted by courts is a positive thing for federal legislation.

As well, from Senator Woo’s reference, it sounds like the Supreme Court of Canada did not rule the phrase “in association with” to be overbroad in that Criminal Code case that he referenced.

Given all of that, wouldn’t you agree that it lends credence to the same phrase, “in association with” and would not be found to be overbroad for those reasons as well?

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: I will say only a few words. Just to make some additional statements, though I agree with Senator Gold on all he said, including on the very relevant comments that were made by Senator Woo, which I respect very much.

What he said could be true in a different context, but we have to remember here that this bill could not lead to McCarthyism. Joseph McCarthy was running a United States Congress committee that was politically judging people who were charged with being communist, who were close to communism or who were sharing views that were considered to be communist views.

Here we are creating offences that will be dealt with by the Crown office that will have to charge somebody before a court of law. The accused appear before a judge — a woman or a man of certain qualifications who has to act impartially and not in the pursuit of political gains or opposing political enemies or political wins. We should not compare; there is no danger of McCarthyism here. I think this is, unfortunately, an overreach comment.

The second point I want to make is that “in association with” is not a new concept. It is a concept well-known to the criminal law. It is found in many places in the Criminal Code, and it was very useful to have in the fight against gangs, especially in Quebec with the biker gangs.

The term “in association with” is also used in the Security of Information Act , which is the first amendment that is on the list of proposed amendments, where the words “in association with” has been found since 2001. What the bill has been amended is to add intimidation to the provision but not the concept of “in association with.” This is not something new. This is something that has been there for 25 years, so far without a problem.

That said, my third and last comment is about the words “in association with.” As Senator Woo referred, very properly, the Supreme Court of Canada had to look at this concept in an appeal from the Court of Appeal of Quebec in 2001. The Supreme Court disagreed with the Court of Appeal of Quebec. I was not part of the panel, incidentally, but the court disagreed with the Court of Appeal of Quebec on one point: the definition of “in association with.” It was about biker gangs.

Just to summarize, that judgment reached exactly what Senator Patterson was aiming at. At paragraph 43 of the Supreme Court decision in Venneri which was unanimous and written by Justice Fish, a former colleague of the Court of Appeal:

The phrase “in association with” should be interpreted in accordance with its plain meaning and statutory context. It is accompanied here by the terms “at the direction of” and “for the benefit of.

That is exactly the same situation we have here.

These phrases are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, they have a shared purpose and will often overlap in their application. Their common objective is to suppress organized crime.

Here it is to suppress foreign interference. To this end, they especially target acts that are connected to the activities of foreign organizations and advance their interests. To this end, they especially target offences that are connected with the intent to interfere in the political process in Canada.

In my view, we should trust the system. I trust the courts. I trust what we are trying to do here. It is nothing new. I believe this: When the words “in association with” are read with “under the direction of” and “to the benefit of,” in the context of the bill they are clear: it is about foreign interference.

You have to read all these things together. I know Senator Woo doesn’t have to believe me all the way, and he is not paying me, so I’m giving free advice. Free advice is always worth the price you pay for it, but I’m giving the advice that I’m not concerned, and I will vote against the amendment and vote for the bill.

Hon. Rebecca Patterson: Senator Dean, will you take a question?

The Hon. the Speaker: The vote will take place at 5:29 p.m. Call in the senators.

Motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Woo negatived on the following division:

Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Honourable senators, I ask for leave of the Senate to interrupt the debate on Bill C-70 in order to take Bill C-69 into consideration at second reading now, with the debate on Bill C-70 resuming once the proceedings on Bill C-69 have concluded for the day.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Some Hon. Senators: No.

The Hon. the Speaker: Are senators ready for the question?

The Hon. the Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”

Hon. Senators: Question.

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Hon. the Speaker: In my opinion the “nays” have it.

And two honourable senators having risen:

The Hon. the Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say “yea.”

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

The Hon. the Speaker: I see two senators rising. Is there agreement on the length of the bell?

Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Fifteen minutes.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Some Hon. Senators: Yes.