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.

Some Hon. Senators: Yes.

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

An Hon. Senator: On division.

(Motion agreed to, on division.)

(At 10:19 p.m., pursuant to the order adopted by the Senate on June 5, 2024, the Senate adjourned until noon tomorrow.)

Hon. Percy E. Downe: Honourable senators, I just want to say a very few words on Bill C-70 on foreign interference. Obviously, I’m no expert on foreign interference or intelligence, but over the years I have been involved a bit in this area. When I had the honour to serve as chief of staff to Prime Minister Chrétien, my very first day, two people from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service came in, sat down and gave me the intelligence reports from Five Eyes. They explained how everything would work, how the documents would come to me. Then they said, “Today, we’ll sit here. You read them, and we’ll take the documents back.” And then they explained what would happen in the future.

I must tell you, I found that pretty exciting as a kid who grew up in Charlottetown watching James Bond movies to be reading this intelligence. After I read — it took me about 10 minutes — I handed the documents back, and I said, “Tell me the procedure. How does it work?” They said, “Well, the documents go to the Clerk of the Privy Council and to you, and then you have to decide what you’re briefing the Prime Minister on.”

At that point the fun left the room because I didn’t fall off a turnip truck last week. I knew the questions would be, “What did you know? When did you know? What did you do when you knew?” So I said, “Give me those documents back. I want to read them again.” Since then, I’ve been involved for two years reading those documents. Later, as many of you know, I had the honour to serve on the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, the first committee, with Senator Lankin, who is still on it, and David McGuinty, who is the chair.

I just want to say a few words, given my questions to Senator Gold. The National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians is an outstanding committee. They have one of the best professional staffs I ever encountered in Ottawa. I’m sure they would have considered every word and every sentence in that report, and they would be extremely careful. I think they serve Canadians well.

Having said that, I decided not to go back on the committee. I did not request to go on the committee when my term was up because I found there were two problems: I was concerned about how much the government was redacting when they released the reports. What we submitted and what they edited out I thought was a step too far. And, quite frankly, having been chief of staff to the Prime Minister, they weren’t getting all the intelligence they should have been getting. They were getting enough to satisfy their responsibilities, but the government wasn’t generous in sharing additional intelligence that I think they would have found helpful.

Having said all that, I’m particularly concerned that we address any erroneous information in the study of Bill C-70, on foreign interference. To that end, I want to speak about what Senator Woo said on Monday. I’m going to quote what he said, and then I’m going to quote the judgment of the case in Australia. I think colleagues can determine if there is a difference between what was stated and what the judge in the case said.

I say this because I’ve always been interested in what the Australians have done in foreign interference. I thought they were the leaders on that file. And I thought they had a bigger problem than we did, they had it earlier, and they addressed it quicker. Having said that, they also have an ongoing problem, and I was intrigued when I heard that someone was actually convicted and sent to jail under the act. That’s why I read the court judgment. For those of you who were around when Senator Baker was here, I do not read court judgments as a hobby. This is one of about half a dozen that I’ve read over the years.

I’ll start with what Senator Woo said on Monday. Here is what he said:

A Vietnamese Australian has been sentenced to two years in jail for the act of preparing or planning an act of foreign interference. What was that act? He organized a fundraiser during COVID, raising money from Vietnamese and Indo-Chinese-Australian communities to buy personal protective equipment and other medical supplies, and he donated that money to a hospital. At the ceremony where the donation was made, he invited a politician — I think he was a sitting minister at the time — to stand with him on the stage holding one of these fake cheques for $25,000 Australian. That was used as evidence that this Vietnamese Australian person was cultivating the minister for a future act of foreign interference.

Just think about that. The Australian system is the Australian system, and they have the right to conduct themselves in the way that they want to. But are we going down the road where someone who develops a relationship with a politician or a public official who may have the potential to rise up the ladder sometime in the near or distant future, that that act in itself is a crime of planning or preparing an act of foreign interference? It drives shivers down the spine.

This is what Senator Woo said on Monday.

Colleagues, I want to compare that to what happened in Australia. This person was tried by a judge and jury. I think it was a five-week trial. I’m only going to quote part of the judgment, but here is what the judge said about this situation. This is Australia, and this is the judge in Australia. He said:

As a prominent and long-serving member of the Liberal Party —

— by that he means, of course, the Australian Liberal Party —

— you had previously met with Minister Tudge on 26 July 2018, at his invitation, to discuss immigration policy. Consistent with the jury’s verdict, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you sought deliberately to use your previous meeting with Minister Tudge as a means of attracting his interest in becoming involved in the donation to the Royal Melbourne Hospital. I am equally satisfied that, on 30 April 2020, you deliberately selected Minister Tudge as a target of the future foreign influence offence precisely because of Minister Tudge’s political power as a Minister in the Australian Federal Government, and because you believed that he could potentially be persuaded to influence Australian Government policy in a manner favourable to the Chinese Communist Party. On your assessment, the attraction of this potential benefit was enhanced by your stated belief that Minister Tudge would, in the future, become the Prime Minister of Australia.

Later he said:

In representing your purposes for the donation as being purely altruistic and genuine, you deceived the intended target, Minister Tudge, as well as members of Minister Tudge’s office staff, members of the Royal Melbourne Hospital associated with the donation, and members of the Oceania Federation who donated funds with no ulterior motive. The prosecution submits that this aspect of your conduct involved a significant breach of the trust of members of the Oceania Federation and of the Liberal Party by using your longstanding affiliation with those bodies as a form of cover in prosecuting the agenda of the Chinese Communist Party. Indeed, as the evidence at the trial amply demonstrated, such covert methodology was a feature of what is known as the United Front Work System, which is employed worldwide by the so-called United Front Work Department which operates under the direction and control of the Chinese Communist Party. I accept those submissions and find the facts that underpin them proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The judge then goes on to say:

I also find to that same standard that you maintained contact prior to and during the offending period with Chinese Communist Party officials both in Australia and overseas. You communicated with them over the encrypted WeChat application, including with officials whom you knew or believed were operatives of the Chinese Government Ministry of State Security. The extent to which you were trusted by the Chinese Communist Party was evidenced by your relationship with the Chinese consulate and was reflected in your invitation from the Chinese Communist Party to attend the 70th Anniversary National Day Celebrations in Beijing. You duly attended those celebrations in Beijing on 1 October 2019.

The evidence led at the trial supports the conclusion that the United Front Work System, as operated by the United Front Work Department, is a sophisticated, far-reaching and pervasive foreign influence program. The Prosecution submits that your offending, and your conduct both before and after the period of the offence, suggests that you were an adept exponent of the methodology of that System. You demonstrated an aptitude and enthusiasm for developing relationships with persons of influence in Australia and overseas and for hiding your connections with the Chinese Communist Party behind your roles in apparently innocuous community organisations. The prosecution submits that, in these respects, your offending may be regarded as sophisticated. I accept that submission and find the underlying facts proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The prosecution argued that the accused had been in contact with Chinese state officials. There were various wiretapped phone calls played in court, including one where he was heard telling an associate, “When I do things it never gets reported in the newspaper, but Beijing will know what I’m doing.” They convicted him, and that’s the other side of the story.

Thank you, colleagues.

Hon. Hassan Yussuff: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak, of course, to Bill C-70, the countering foreign interference act.

We have spent the past years watching and reading in real time about foreign countries meddling in our elections, threatening the diaspora community on Canadian soil and targeting, of course, our members of Parliament. We have read public reports detailing the scope and breadth of this ongoing interference, and it has shaken us. It has reminded us of the paramount importance of protecting the security we so often take for granted. Bill C-70, while imperfect, takes an important first step in addressing these concerns.

By now, you have heard colleagues describe the various provisions of Bill C-70 in depth: the important and necessary changes that it makes to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, the Security of Information Act, and the Criminal Code, as well as the proposed enactment of the foreign influence transparency and accountability act, which would create a foreign agent registry.

I intend to focus my remarks on three concerns that have arisen during the National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs Committee’s study of this very important bill.

First and foremost, foreign interference in our domestic process is unacceptable and needs to be addressed immediately, particularly in the context of a looming federal election. While I admit that Bill C-70 is imperfect and will require ongoing study, we must pass it now to ensure it can be implemented in time for the next federal election.

At the same time, we must also balance our security needs with the protection of our Charter rights of expression and association. Concerns about the broad scope of certain definitions concerning protest in Bill C-70 must be addressed.

Finally, we must also ensure that our national security and the integrity of our elections remain a non-partisan issue. It is imperative that all parties and groups come together to create the best national security regime we can with the tools we have available in the moment, which — I believe — Bill C-70 accomplishes. The need for compromise is a feature — not a bug — of Canadian democracy. It is essential if we are to combat threats posed by countries that do not hold our regard for democracy.

As Canadians, we face a wide range of security threats: threats to our economy, infrastructure, research, cybersecurity, the integrity of our electoral processes and the very functioning of our government.

The first concern I want to raise is the urgency of passing Bill C-70.

In the context of such wide-ranging threats, it is important that we get the timing right. I have heard the frustrations of my colleagues that more could and should have been done sooner to combat the threat of foreign interference. I share many of their frustrations and have said so publicly and also at the committee hearings.

No matter what should have been done in the past, we must deal with the solutions we have in front of us now. I believe Bill C-70 is an important first step of that solution and that we must pass it with the urgency it requires. Canadians demand it, demand no more.

Last week, our committee heard from many witnesses across political lines and in various corners of government and civil society about the need for the swift passage of this bill.

Activists from Hong Kong Watch and the Canada Tibet Committee, facing considerable risk just by testifying publicly to the transnational repression they face daily, urged for the speedy passage of Bill C-70.

Richard Fadden, former director of CSIS and National Security and Intelligence Advisor to Prime Minister Harper and Prime Minister Trudeau at one time, urged the rapid passage of the bill, stating in his committee appearance:

To delay Bill C-70 to the point that it will not be in place before the next election would be a gift to our adversaries. . . .

I’m inclined to agree with him.

The government has told us that if the bill is passed now, they will work to implement the foreign agent registry in time for the next election.

Following the appointment of a new foreign influence transparency commissioner to administer the act, Canadians can have faith that malicious foreign actors can and will be held responsible for violating Canadian law. Canadians can have faith that the integrity of our democratic processes will be protected.

Senators, it is possible to support the swift passage of this bill and to acknowledge that its implementation will require ongoing oversight. This is my second concern.

Our committee heard from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, or CCLA, who shared concerns that the sabotage provisions outlined in proposed section 52.1(1) of the Criminal Code, as outlined in Bill C-70, are too broad as written and will require clarification.

As it currently stands, the provision only concerns the sabotage of essential infrastructure and does not, according to the CCLA, “. . . have a foreign interference element and can apply to wholly domestic matters.”

Senators, this is deeply concerning, as we want to ensure distinctions are made between legitimate domestic protests and nefarious foreign obstruction of our critical infrastructure. The government has acknowledged these concerns and has stressed that targeting domestic protesters is not the goal of this bill.

True as that may be, I am concerned that future governments are likely to take advantage of this lack of clarity and that legitimate protesters like union members — I used to be involved in union protests — or First Nations members could find themselves in the crosshairs.

There is a need to clearly define what constitutes a threat to the “safety, security or defence of Canada” and what the government considers “essential infrastructure.” I fear that without this clarity, this section of the law will be ripe for potential abuse by future governments at any level.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association are not the only ones concerned with this proposed section of the bill. Our committee also heard from the University of Ottawa professor Michael Kempa, who suggested, “Underlining the language around the necessity for foreign involvement or interference driving that activity would safeguard domestic protest.”

I’m inclined to agree, senators. I think the section in its current form is too broadly encompassing. Having said that, I still believe we should pass this bill to ensure the foreign agent registry has a fighting chance of being implemented before the next federal election.

Does that mean we simply drop these issues? I am confident that senators in this chamber and in committees will continue to study the implementation of this bill to ensure that our fundamental rights are protected alongside our national security.

Senators, my final concern is that election integrity and national security should be consensus-based and non-partisan issues.

Our committee heard from witnesses who are members of the other place and who are satisfied that Bill C-70 takes a balanced, substantive approach to national security that is supported by all parties in the other place.

Both the Conservative MP Michael Chong and the Liberal Minister of Justice Arif Virani called attention to the rare nature of the all-party support for Bill C-70 in the other place. Minister Virani told our committee that this is because “. . . all parties in the House of Commons feel the necessity of proceeding with pace in respect to this legislation.” Mr. Chong echoed his sentiments, telling us that this consensus is the result of “. . . how serious members of the House of Commons see the threats to the elected house and to our elections.”

Colleagues, we must continue to work on this issue from a consensus standpoint on the substance of the issue. Many of the anti-democratic countries interfering with our national security do not hold regular elections and are thus not making major policy changes every four years. To successfully combat foreign interference, a non-partisan approach requiring deliberation, mutual agreement and some compromise on all sides is the path forward.

Senators, in conclusion, as you have heard me and others say in this chamber, Bill C-70 has many strengths and some weaknesses. It is not a perfect bill, but it is an important step toward addressing the threat of foreign interference in Canada.

I want to thank Minister Virani and Minister LeBlanc for appearing before the Standing Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs to testify on this issue. I also want to thank our dear colleague Senator Dean for his skilled sponsorship of this bill and my dear friend Senator Dagenais for his sound management of the committee as we heard witnesses testify to the impacts of Bill C-70.

Honourable colleagues, if I can digress for a minute, I have a name, Hassan Yussuff. After 9/11 happened, our country — like many other countries around the world — acted to bring forth laws that were necessary based on what we witnessed after 9/11. The unintended consequence of that law was that when I went to the airport, I was always selected to be scrutinized.

I can tell you that in my past life, in my past job, I went through airports 10 to 20 times a week. That was my job. I travelled the country to meet with my members and talk with them. I understood that it was the consequence of that law and that prejudice is hard to overcome. How do you train people when you pass a law that says that you should not do that because the person looks like the person you may think? This is a reality of human behaviour, and we need to acknowledge it because if we don’t, we don’t understand the complexity of our country and how we build unity.

My second point is that Maher Arar did not rendition himself in Syria to be tortured. He was renditioned by the officials in our security system who targeted him because they believed he was a threat to our security. He did survive that interrogation and subsequently called home. As you may recall, there was a national inquiry that looked into it, and cautioned and guided us about how not to do the same thing again. I understand that, because for many, if we forget that, we forget our own history and how we can do better.

Third, many Muslim families had nothing to do with the security risks to our country but found the names of their children on a watch list. These were kids who had nothing to do with terrorism but could not get themselves off that list. It took a significant amount of time for our country to finally do the right thing, because we didn’t create the list.

My point is that good intentions are good intentions. However, we are a country that is very diverse, as is this chamber. We all want to do the right thing — to protect our great, wonderful country — but in doing so, we should also be conscious of how some people can at times be targeted just because of how they look and what they say.

It is an imperfect bill in some ways. However, I believe this chamber can do what it is famous for, which is to continue to do its work in examining the implementation of the legislation and regulations, as well as bringing the commissioner before our committee to testify in regard to how they will do their job in enforcing the law. If we see the flaws early enough, we should not hesitate to act collectively, because our national security cannot be protected if we divide our country.

Colleagues, I will conclude. I want to thank the countless activists and brave ordinary citizens working to combat the threat of foreign interference. We have had the pleasure of hearing from some of them. As we continue our work studying the issue, we hope to hear from many more.

This bill is trying to address some of their concerns because of what they face every single day. However, this bill is also for Canadians collectively and the nation we represent. We will do the right thing when we pass it, but let me be clear: I want to thank my colleague Senator Woo for what he said in this chamber; it took courage to do so. We should not be so quick to judge, because people have accused him of things that I don’t believe he —

[Translation]

Hon. Yuen Pau Woo: May I ask a question of Senator Downe?

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Downe, the time for debate has expired.

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Colleagues, I’d like to begin by saying that I support the principle and purpose of this bill. There’s no doubt that foreign influence on our democratic institutions is a grave threat that must be taken seriously.

[English]

However, I welcome this opportunity to place on the parliamentary record some grave concerns about the application, scope and means of this rushed bill, entitled “Countering Foreign Interference Act.”

First, a compelling case has not been made for rushing to a vote on this bill when we are in the midst of an independent public inquiry into foreign interference in federal electoral processes and democratic institutions being conducted by an independent commissioner, Justice Marie-Josée Hogue. She has accepted responsibility to address the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, or NSICOP, report as part of her ongoing inquiry and to report by the end of this year, in ample time for development and scrutiny of new legislation.

It is deeply ironic that if we as senators choose to truncate our task as the chamber of sober second thought without ensuring the time for proper study and amendment, it will be civil society that will take on this task, but with fewer resources and far less authority than we have. For example, today, seeing the Senate rushing this bill through in less time than the time taken for the Anti-terrorism Bill in 2001, post 9/11, the Centre for Free Expression, working with the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group — a coalition of 46 Canadian organizations — announced their plan to create a rights risk-monitoring mechanism. The new law created by this bill needs to be monitored, because implementation is going to impact internationally protected and Charter rights, such as freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of association.

Civil liberties that are supposed to be protected by our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, entrenched in the Constitution of Canada, are endangered by this bill, which is being rushed through Parliament to appease political expediency. In doing so, we are denying Canadians a more thorough and careful study of this bill, which is, after all, our primary role.

It is worth noting the “abuse of process” referenced by Senator Tannas today with respect to rushing the budget bill. It was given about five times more time than we have given the bill on foreign interference now before us.

So, what are we facing this evening? My speaking time is short, but sadly, my list of concerns is quite long. I have been troubled by signs of foreign interference for years now, and I am one of the parliamentarians for whom foreign interference is real and present. To give just one example, earlier this year, media reported that a number of parliamentarians in a number of countries were targeted by the Chinese state-sponsored hacking group APT31 in January 2021. I was among those politicians targeted due to my work — mark these words, please, for their vagueness — “in association with” pro-democracy groups in Hong Kong.

Following those revelations, I contacted the Senate cybersecurity team, which conducted an in-depth analysis. The Information Services Directorate, or ISD, confirmed that my office was targeted by malicious malware and other hacking attempts. However, those incursions were identified promptly by our IT team as potentially malicious, quarantined and deleted from our system without compromising our internal networks. I commend the vigilance and quick action of the Senate IT security team.

However, I remain deeply concerned that I was not informed that I was, among other parliamentarians, a deliberate target of foreign-backed hacking attempts. My experience as a target does not occlude my concern that Bill C-70 will prove to be harmful to innocent Canadians, because it is unnecessarily and likely unconstitutionally vague and overly broad.

Clause 53 would criminalize several acts made — here are these words again — “. . . in association with . . .” foreign entities that would prejudice Canada’s interests. To my eye, this wording does not sufficiently delineate between criminal activity and innocent, well-intentioned cooperation or communication with international partners. Allow me to remind us about the Supreme Court of Canada on the doctrine of vagueness:

It is a fundamental requirement of the rule of law that a person should be able to predict whether a particular act constitutes a crime at the time he commits the act. . . .

That is from R. v. Mabior in 2012.

The following year, the Supreme Court ruled in R. v. Levkovic in 2013:

It is not enough for laws to provide guidance to legal experts; laws, as judicially interpreted, must be sufficiently intelligible to guide ordinary citizens on how to conduct themselves within legal boundaries. . . .

Furthermore, I believe the scope of activities this bill would render illegal is substantially disproportionate to its objectives. Unlike comparable anti-terrorism legislation, these new crimes do not require the intent to support other illegal activities. Bill C-70 only requires the knowledge of a risk of prejudice to Canada’s interests, a term that is not defined and is overly broad.

The creation of these new crimes in addition to the proposed foreign influence registry will impact freedom of expression and freedom of association for academics, members of civil society, broadcasters and business leaders, who could soon find their research, advocacy, journalism or business dealings deemed illegal under this bill as a new law.

There is a high probability that the proposed registry will also undermine individual privacy rights. Good faith actors who register run the risk of seeing themselves profiled on discriminatory grounds or “doxxed” for their political positions. Definition and protection of the information collected and published through the registry created in this bill are left to regulation — details completely unknown to us as we face this vote.

Honourable colleagues, in light of constitutional protections this bill engages and the importance of the democratic institutions it aims to protect, Bill C-70 should be studied with thorough scrutiny, a process that cannot be rushed through in less than two weeks. It is clear that this horse of a bill has the bit in its mouth and is galloping to a “yea” majority.

As the place of sober second thought, we have a duty to scrutinize such important legislation. We should be ensuring that its means will indeed attain its ends, considering evolving regulations. We should be closely examining if any compromise on fundamental freedoms is necessary, rational, minimal and proportionate.

Earlier in this debate, Senator MacDonald affirmed that national security is not a partisan issue, and I agree. I would add that protection of constitutional rights and freedoms is not a partisan issue either. Further, the two are not mutually exclusive. May I remind you of the supreme constitutional protections of privacy, freedom of the press, freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of expression and freedom of association?

What we as parliamentarians are engaged in right now is a textbook example of the “shock doctrine,” defined by Naomi Klein in her prescient book of that name, that documents the exploitation of national crises or upheavals to establish laws and measures that can be used to undermine rights and freedoms while citizens are too distracted by, for example, a financial crisis to engage and develop an adequate response and resist effectively. I might add that for us as senators charged with careful review of bills that come to us from the other house — whenever those bills may come — an adequate and effective response takes time, and parliamentarians have a duty not to become distracted from scrutinizing bills that can be used to undermine rights and freedoms.

Parliamentarians should not be distracted when changes to sabotage laws — including amendments passed by the House of Commons to extend the coverage of infrastructure still under construction — threaten the right to protest, including the rights of Indigenous land defenders and their allies. I agree with civil society concerns that the protective exceptions in this bill for protest do not go far enough and could still be used to stifle legitimate acts of civil disobedience or dissent.

I believe we are seeing here what Naomi Klein observed in several countries that she studied, which is, “Democracy and human rights are often trampled upon under the guise of emergency measures.”

In closing, while I support the policy intent of this bill and I believe that we do need new laws that address foreign interference effectively, I also believe that the risks in this bill should be heard as a clarion call for a more thorough study, such as we typically do with major bills — except, perhaps, when we are hearing the siren call of summer adjournment.

In light of the imminent choice for a scrutiny-light approach to this bill, I urge that our next step be to refer these issues for further Senate committee study than has been undertaken on this hugely consequential bill.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

Hon. Andrew Cardozo: Honourable senators, I have a few comments I’d like to share.

First, I want to be clear that I believe this is an important bill. I think the timing is very important because, certainly, Canada and many countries around the world are facing a real and growing threat of interference that is more serious and more dangerous than it has ever been before — in part because we live in a more dangerous world and in part because of everything that can be done through the internet.

The comments I want to make are about the issues of loyalty and the motherland that came up a few minutes ago. It’s not just about how we discussed it here; it’s how we think about these terms in society.

We live in a country where the population is approximately 95% immigrants and descendants of immigrants. Currently about 30% of the population are themselves — ourselves — immigrants. Loyalty is not easy to define and should not be enforced in a draconian way, saying that you’re either loyal or you’re not.

I want to differentiate the comments I’m making from the issues of sabotage or acts against the state. There is no question that we should not tolerate sabotage against the Canadian state or the Canadian people — or any acts of sabotage. I’m talking about how we converse among ourselves and how we regard each other.

As immigrants, people develop a sense of loyalty over a period of time. That is determined by a complex set of issues, starting with when they came here, why they came here, why they left their country of origin, whether they still have family there, whether they were the majority, whether they were chased out and whether they are refugees. All of these different issues will determine how much feeling they have toward their country of origin. They may have come from another country but were never considered part of that country, so they may not see that country as their motherland. They may see Canada as the motherland they have been looking for all their lives.

However, these things change over time, and they change with a person’s age. At a certain age, a person may be more interested in school, in girls, in boys and all sorts of things. At another time they may be more conscious about politics and the nature of the country they came from.

It also depends on what’s happening in their country of origin. A person of Ukrainian origin may have been proud of their origin five years ago but today they are feeling their “Ukrainianness” very strongly because their homeland — their motherland — is under attack. For the first time, they feel more Ukrainian than they’ve ever felt before. Are they suddenly being disloyal to Canada? No; we live in a diverse country, and we can have loyalties to more than one country.

We talk about someone from China or Russia, but let’s look at somebody of French origin, like a former leader of the Liberal Party who was a dual citizen of Canada and France. Was he disloyal? Some people thought he was. I don’t think he was, but that’s the nature of dual citizenship.

Andrew Scheer is also a dual citizen. I don’t think that makes him less loyal.

We have these various concepts in this democratic free society of ours where we try to ensure that people are loyal, but I want to — and, again, I don’t want to be pointing fingers and just looking at our debate here this evening, but it’s about — as we move ahead with this law and we talk about foreign interference and foreign others, understand that there are people among us who are at various stages of loyalty to Canada. It’s sort of that thing about love. It grows, and sometimes you’re more in love and sometimes you’re less in love, and it changes over time depending on a whole lot of reasons. I won’t go further down that road.

I should end here by saying this: This is a complex society we live in. This is a complex world we’re living in that’s becoming more complex, and, indeed, we’ve got a complex bill that tries to deal with a lot of the different things that a law of this kind has to.

Overall, I think it strikes the right balance, and it’s for that reason I am proud to support the bill. Thank you.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Honourable colleagues, I have shared my view on foreign interference for a very long time, both in this chamber and elsewhere, and I’m pleased in the last couple of weeks there has been a surge on the part of the government and all colleagues to start dealing with this existential crisis that we’re facing.

Unlike Senator Cardozo, I don’t think this is a very complicated issue. This is a very simple issue. Unfortunately, there are various elements for a variety of reasons that complicate a very simple issue.

I also don’t agree with my good friend Senator McPhedran that we’re rushing this for political expediency reasons. We are rushing this because what’s at stake is the credibility of our electoral process and the reputation of our democracy, which has been blemished because of foreign interference over at least the last two elections that we know of based on tangible reports — from the preliminary report from the public inquiry, from a report from the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, or NSICOP, that dates back as far as 2018 from our colleagues that were raising red flags as well as, of course, from reports that started as far back as 2013, which highlighted foreign interference in our democracy and our Parliament.

I can easily say that probably it was political expediency that has taken so long for us to deal with this existential crisis because I agree with you that we should have been dealing with this in thorough debate and discussion at various committees, particularly in the Senate. The Senate, if there is a place where we can have an added value, is to take these types of issues out of the political arena, take a step back, take a deep breath, in conjunction with our national security agencies, with our Five Eyes allies, with our members at NSICOP who have a particular experience and figure out, number one, what is wrong with the structure we have in place with regard to national security and foreign interference. Unfortunately, for many years — and it’s not the fault of this government; it is many governments — all roads that deal with national security lead to one person only, and that’s in the Prime Minister’s Office. That opens the door, of course, for partisanship, particularly when it comes to the interference of the electoral process.

I’m not saying I have the solution in one swoop, and I don’t think this bill has the solution to the problem either. It’s one giant step forward because it does put on guard various nefarious actors around the world who think that Canada is very porous — and we have been very porous. When we read the preliminary report from Justice Hogue vis-à-vis the public inquiry, she makes it clear. We don’t need to wait until the end of the year to read the rest of the report. If you read the preliminary report, it’s frightening what comes out of that report.

When we hear what has leaked out of the reports from NSICOP that has gone to the Prime Minister, it’s frightening. It calls into question this very institution, the lower chamber and our electoral process.

Now the government finds itself behind the eight ball, racing to put into place a bill that will at least hopefully be in place in the next 12 or 14 months, before the next election, to give Elections Canada, the RCMP and political parties the flexibility they need to make sure that our democratic process withstands the test of time.

As you all know, I’m rather partisan and involved in political organizations, and I can tell you that there is no doubt there has been foreign interference in our elections. We fight it within our party ranks. We see all parties dealing with it. I don’t think it had, thank God, enough of an impact to affect the overall results of the last two elections. There is no doubt about that. But we have to make sure that if we don’t take the necessary steps to protect future elections, it might have a greater impact in the future.

Regardless of which political parties win or lose elections, one thing that distinguishes us as a democracy is we come to this place, we have robust and vigorous debates about left-wing policies, right-wing policies, being Liberal, being Conservative and we have acrimonious discussions very often, but the beauty of all this is every few years, when the general public speaks and makes decisions, we all respect those decisions. We go back home, we have a beer, we have our dinner and we go back at it a week later. That’s the beauty of a democracy.

We don’t take our opponents and put them in prison. We don’t take our opponents and execute them in public executions. We aren’t so dogmatic about our political views that when we disagree with people, we throw them off rooftops and murder them. That is what is happening in various places around the world. There are a lot of nefarious regimes around the world that don’t afford their citizens the same privileges and rights that we have in this country.

We sometimes take it for granted. All of us who follow foreign affairs a little bit, we should all recognize that over the last two decades, democracy is in decline. If you look at Democracy Watch and other organizations — I know, Senator McPhedran, that you’re very active on foreign affairs — democracy is weaker today than it was 25 years ago. It’s weaker today than it was 15 years ago. If we’re not vigilant, we have seen, through the history of time, that most democracies don’t get attacked and defeated from the outside. They wither away from the inside.

The real forces of evil and enemies are trying to infiltrate the Western democracies that have afforded us and billions of people around the world the best quality of life, and Canada is an example of that. Where I do agree with Senator Cardozo is that Canada has been a magnet because of that for people from all over the world.

You look at this chamber. I don’t think there is any other democratic parliamentary chamber as diverse as this chamber and as representative of this country — there is no other country in the world. Why have we achieved that? Because of one thing we all agree upon. We might disagree about you being independent. We might disagree about me not being too independent enough and so on and so forth, but what we all agree on is that our freedom, our democracy, human rights and the rule of law are not negotiable.

An Hon. Senator: Hear, hear.

Hon. Rebecca Patterson: Will the Honourable Senator Housakos take a quick question?