- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Trois-Rivières
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 61%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $192,702.62
- Government Page
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.
1544 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle for raising this matter. Last week's special report from the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians followed the testimony given by many witnesses at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security and the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, as well as numerous other reports. Communication was identified as a problem, along with siloing.
Bill C-70 seeks to solve part of this problem, but we will study that tomorrow. For now, I feel we should allow a culture of intelligence sharing, but above all, we should develop a culture of protecting ourselves and realizing that interference exists in 2024, that it is already here and that, whether we like it or not, it is spreading. I am in complete agreement with my colleague. I hope this type of procedure can be put in place.
152 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague. We had the opportunity to work together to examine Bill C-70 in depth. His comments were always insightful.
At this time, we know that the NDP leader has gotten security clearance, that the Prime Minister has automatically received the information and the leader of the Bloc Québécois is completing the process to receive security clearance. Of course the Conservative Party does not want to do so. I like my colleague's expression, when he talks about a veil of ignorance. It reminds me of my studies in philosophy with John Rawls.
I think that we cannot afford not to push together. I repeat, interference has no political stripe. It is a real threat. It is financial, it is democratic. It is steamrolling everyone. Parliaments all over the world are interested in foreign interference. Last week, a law was passed unanimously in the European community. I think we cannot be against it. If we are against, I have serious doubts and I have a problem with that.
178 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved:
That the House:
(a) take note of the Special Report on Foreign Interference in Canada's Democratic Processes and Institutions of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians;
(b) express concern that certain elected officials may be wittingly or unwittingly working in the interests of foreign powers; and
(c) request the terms of reference of the foreign interference commission (the Hogue Commission) to be expanded to allow it to investigate Canada's federal democratic institutions, including members of the House of Commons elected in the 43rd and 44th Parliaments as well as Senators.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise today to give the opening speech for today's Bloc Québécois opposition day, which is about foreign interference. I would like to take this opportunity to say hello to my constituents in Trois-Rivières. I often discuss this subject with them because they find it interesting. People are curious, and today we are going to try to satisfy that curiosity.
Here is the motion:
That the House:
(a) take note of the Special Report on Foreign Interference in Canada's Democratic Processes and Institutions of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians;
(b) express concern that certain elected officials may be wittingly or unwittingly working in the interests of foreign powers; and
(c) request the terms of reference of the foreign interference commission (the Hogue Commission) to be expanded to allow it to investigate Canada's federal democratic institutions, including members of the House of Commons elected in the 43rd and 44th Parliaments as well as Senators.
One week ago today, Canada, the Parliament of Canada and, undoubtedly, many of Canada's national security and intelligence allies lost their innocence. Despite the Liberal government's repeated denials, despite the ill-advised optimism of the so-called independent special rapporteur, despite the report by the ineffectual Rosenberg commission, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, or NSICOP, published a devastating report on June 5. The report is not devastating in its tone. It is devastating because of what it contains, which was unknown to most although suspected by many.
Despite the redaction that comes with this type of report, it is obvious that there is a problem, that we are at risk. Throughout its 178 paragraphs, the report describes the concept of foreign interference. Incidentally, I would like to point out that the concept of foreign interference is not defined in Canadian law, nor is it included in Bill C‑70, which we are currently studying. The report also describes the identity of the rogue states, their tactics, their use of cybertools and the absence of a coordinated response to these threats by the Canadian government.
Paragraph 50 and the paragraphs that follow are the ones that make the reader's hair stand on end.
First, we learn that some parliamentarians have communicated “frequently with foreign missions before or during a political campaign to obtain support from community groups or businesses which the diplomatic missions promise to quietly mobilize in a candidate's favour”.
Second, we learn that some parliamentarians have accepted “knowingly or through willful blindness funds or benefits from foreign missions or their proxies which have been layered or otherwise disguised to conceal their source”.
Third, we learn that some parliamentarians have provided “foreign diplomatic officials with privileged information on the work or opinions of fellow Parliamentarians, knowing that such information will be used by those officials to inappropriately pressure Parliamentarians to change their positions”.
Fourth, we learn that some parliamentarians have responded “to the requests or direction of foreign officials to improperly influence Parliamentary colleagues or Parliamentary business to the advantage of a foreign state”.
Fifth, we learn that some parliamentarians have provided “information learned in confidence from the government to a known intelligence officer of a foreign state.”
These are five devastating findings. This report confirms that, right now, there are members of the House who have, in one way or another, colluded with rogue states against our national interest. It is right there in black and white. If that is not foreign interference, then what is?
We cannot and must not remain indifferent in light of such a revelation. I promise that we will not remain indifferent. Of course, the government did warn us. I will give three examples of what it said. The government told us that intelligence is not truth. That answer has merit. Intelligence is not necessarily the truth. The government also told us that sometimes we have to look at the whole picture to understand the meaning, the direction and the path and to know where we are going.
That is not wrong. It is an interesting point. The report also states that the information was top secret and could not be revealed upon penalty of life imprisonment, which is also true. These three points are factual. We can agree on that.
I would like to hear and understand the justifications or answers but, in the end, the report is clear. There is currently interference in our Parliament. Instead of trying to reassure us with empty rhetoric, what did they do? What are they doing? What are we going to do? These questions remain unanswered.
After hearing the lame justifications concerning the Trudeau Foundation given before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, after reading the complacent report of the so-called independent special rapporteur and the damning report of the committee of parliamentarians, what are they doing? What will it take for them to do something?
Currently, the situation is tense. There is a sense of distrust. That is no good for anyone, for any party. Then, to add insult to injury, the committee of parliamentarians mentioned something very interesting in its 2023 report. The committee said that the government submitted only four of the thousand documents requested. That is four out of one thousand. That has to be read to be believed. In all fairness, I would say that some of the 996 missing documents were submitted in redacted form. Okay, but still, it is a curiously small sample.
Once the parliamentarians read the report of the Special Committee on the Canada–People's Republic of China Relationship on the Winnipeg laboratory, there were all sorts of debates in the House, and approximately 600 pages of the report were redacted, including the footnotes and page numbers.
A special committee was struck to analyze the situation alongside arbitrators, who used to serve as Federal Court judges. The arbitrators found that the redaction was excessive. It may have been preventive, but it was excessive. We saw that the report's redactions were nearly eliminated. They were not entirely eliminated because there was sensitive information in the report, but all in all, most of the redactions were done away with. We often come up against over-classification, which is to say that information is classified in too high a category. It goes from “confidential” to “secret”, from “secret” to “top secret”, and so on. It is done for preventive reasons, but perhaps not very accurately.
I would just echo the remarks of the Information Commissioner, who told us at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, that this government clearly prefers darkness to light.
It is in that spirit that the Bloc Québécois is moving its motion today. The situation is worse than we could have possibly imagined to date. The report tells us not only that foreign states are interfering in our democratic process, but that parliamentarians are colluding with these states. These elected representatives are not publicly named, and the members who serve on the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, or NSICOP, are bound to secrecy forever, as I was saying earlier, under penalty of imprisonment.
In other words, the names of the individuals working for foreign interests may not be revealed by the NSICOP, but they can be through other avenues, such as a broader inquiry by the Hogue commission. The commission could dig deeper and obtain new testimony as part of a broader investigation.
The Liberal government must understand that its duty is to protect us, not protect itself. It must cease its strategy of dodging serious questions and remove its rose-coloured glasses, because the year is no longer 2015. The government must also stop trivializing the situation, as the parliamentary secretary and member for Pickering—Uxbridge did last week. Before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, she replied, “Boo hoo, get over it” to a parliamentarian who was querying the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs about the foreign interference.
This trivialization is unacceptable and will not be tolerated any longer. The Liberal government must also understand that not everyone is nice, that not everyone is telling the truth and that the interference is real. To get to the bottom of things, some explanations are in order. It is a given that the “top secret” security classification binds parliamentarians to secrecy for life. This is a real thing.
There is also something called cabinet confidence. Its purpose is codified in the Westminster Parliament, and that is not a bad thing in and of itself. It allows participants to perhaps be more honest with each other, with no filters and without the risk of being smeared or whatnot.
Secrecy is not a bad thing in and of itself. Cabinet confidence is not a bad thing in and of itself either. The problem lies in cabinet confidence being abused, in a way that could be described as unethical, in this instance. To make sense of it, we have to be able to distinguish between secrecy and concealment, which are very different notions. Without going into the origin of the word, secrecy is that which must not be shared. It is in a different category. Concealment is simply deception to conceal what could be shared. Concealment is a form of manipulation, a type of lying that implies a certain superiority over others, based on the fact that one knows and believes the other does not need to know. It is not very egalitarian. However, lying is mostly making people believe something and do what they would not have done had they known. That is fundamental in an election.
All lies are secret, but not all secrets are lies. This is an important distinction, and I encourage my friends across the aisle to think about it. Concealment and lies are the enemies of trust, which, I would remind members, consists in putting one's future in someone else's hands. In an election, citizens put their future in the hands of their elected candidates and they have the right to expect those candidates to earn that trust. Citizens expect that the government will protect their interests, not those of a foreign power or, worse yet, partisan interests.
However, as it stands, when one looks at everything the Liberal government has done to address foreign interference, one can only be surprised by its casual approach and its elevation of concealment as a way of life. That is why we must push harder to do away with concealment and lies and restore the trust that Canadians deserve from elected officials.
After the failure of the so-called independent special rapporteur, the Bloc Québécois placed its trust in the Hogue commission. The Hogue commission was established by the four main parties, who worked together and unanimously agreed on the commissioner and the scope and nature of the commission's terms of reference.
For the benefit of those who may not know, I will list a few elements of those terms of reference. The commission will “examine and assess the interference by China, Russia and other foreign states or non-state actors, including any potential impacts, in order to confirm the integrity of, and any impacts on, the 43rd and 44th general elections”. It will also “examine and assess the flow of information to senior decision-makers, including elected officials”. Thirdly, it will “examine and assess the capacity of relevant federal departments, agencies, institutional structures and governance processes to permit the Government of Canada to detect, deter and counter any form of foreign interference directly or indirectly targeting Canada's democratic processes.”
That is an extraordinary mission, and as they say, extraordinary problems require extraordinary remedies. The Hogue commission has extraordinary powers: It can adopt any procedures or methods it sees fit to effectively conduct the public inquiry, and it can receive and examine all pertinent documents, classified or not. That is the problem, because the commissioner admitted that she had not received certain documents or that she received redacted documents when they should not have been redacted, which brings me back to the issue of over-classification. We need to stop being afraid of being afraid. The four parties unanimously appointed a commissioner and gave her a mandate. The commissioner should be able to obtain these documents.
Foreign interference has no political stripe. Foreign interference affects every parliamentarian here in the House, every political party and every citizen. Tens of billions of dollars are stolen every year. Members of many diasporas are threatened on Canadian soil every year. The threats are real, now, here in the House. Doing nothing is not an option anymore. We must stop looking the other way and believing that the danger will go away on its own.
That is why the Bloc Québécois “request[s] the terms of reference of the foreign interference commission…to be expanded to allow it to investigate Canada's federal democratic institutions, including members of the House of Commons elected in the 43rd and 44th Parliaments as well as Senators.”
We must choose to make history rather than endure it. Great danger calls for great courage. The Bloc Québécois is moving this motion so that trust can be restored. I ask all my colleagues to have courage.
2385 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Drummond. All those voices were rather distracting.
As I was saying, the Chinese government arrested two Canadian citizens in China and took trade actions against Quebec and Canadian farmers, all to influence Canadian policy and force the government to give in. These dramatic actions, which were taken openly, constitute aggressive diplomacy. However, to be very clear, China also took more discreet measures and those are the types of measures that Bill C‑70 seeks to counter.
Russia is saber rattling to mask its decline. China is in the final stages of its big project to transform an empire into a country. They are both projecting their power and need to weaken international resistance, hence the interference campaigns abroad, including in Canada. We need the necessary antibodies to prepare ourselves and to guard against that.
The second reason, in addition to the international situation, is the national situation. I am going to share a secret: Do not tell anyone, but an election is coming. I do not know when, but it is coming. Sometimes the leader of the NDP does this funny dance before he grovels or goes into bravado mode. His rhetoric suggests that there will be an election any day now. However, that is not the case. The reality is that we do not know for sure, but it could happen at any time. I am just joking around with my NDP friends, of course.
On election day, the politicians keep quiet and the citizens do the talking. For that to happen, in order for citizens to speak freely, they cannot be targeted by pressure or interference. That is what democratic expression is all about. That said, an election is the ideal time for interference. It can be tempting for a foreign actor to try to replace a hawk with a dove, for example. It is therefore essential that we develop tools for countering foreign interference before the election period, and time is running out.
The third reason is the legislative situation. Canada does not currently have the antibodies to fight off the virus of foreign interference. There is no foreign agent registry, for example, and the various laws governing the operation of the intelligence agencies date back 40 years, before the digital age. Some of our members were not even born yet.
Those laws do not make it possible to analyze the huge amount of information that can be gathered today and process it within a useful time frame. Those laws do a poor job of protecting secret operational intelligence. Those laws do not adequately protect people against threats or intimidation by foreign states. The rules of the justice system have not struck a balance that allows for prosecution, a fair trial and the protection of sensitive intelligence. All of this is what Bill C‑70 seeks to correct. That is why we support it in principle.
In practical terms, Bill C‑70 amends four acts. Part 1 amends the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, which governs the organization better known as CSIS. The amendments clarify data collection and analysis, provide for preservation and production orders, and authorize new search and seizure powers. David Vigneault, director of CSIS, has long been calling for the act's modernization. It was enacted in 1984, before the Internet existed, and has not been amended since. Technology has obviously evolved, and such a legislative change is long overdue. According to David Vigneault, too many authorizations are required, including the approval of the Minister of Public Safety, to analyze the data and decide whether to retain, process or archive them.
In fact, here is the government's description of the Kafkaesque current process:
The totality of this process could require up to five separate submissions for review by the Minister, Intelligence Commissioner, and/or the Court, resulting in a delay of up to six to nine months before CSIS can exploit the data, by which time its intelligence value may have diminished significantly. If CSIS cannot evaluate and apply to retain the dataset within the statutory time limit, it is required to destroy all the data.
It could take six to nine months, but information can be sent instantaneously. Something is not right there. I would remind the House that the election period lasts five weeks. A six- to nine-month delay is not very helpful. That is not all. Currently, CSIS cannot share intelligence outside the federal government. Bill C‑70 would allow that, which is very good. Once the bill comes into force, the provinces, municipalities and territories will be able to receive certain information.
Imagine for a moment that Hydro‑Québec is the victim of foreign interference or espionage. CSIS could disclose certain information to Hydro‑Québec to help the publicly owned corporation protect its critical information. The same goes for warrants under the current CSIS legislation, which are not adapted to the digital age and can sometimes paralyze investigations.
All these aspects of Bill C‑70 seem to be good ideas. We will have to look at it carefully in committee, because the devil is in the details.
We know that total security would require total surveillance. I do not think that we want to go that far.
The restrictions and silos that are paralyzing CSIS, and that this government wants to relax, are there for a reason. Much of this stems from the work of the McDonald commission that examined the RCMP's actions during the October crisis in Quebec. Members will recall the events of October 1970. We certainly remember. The federal government had imprisoned hundreds of people in Quebec, including politicians, intellectuals and artists, causing a true national trauma. In order for the federal government to regain Quebeckers' trust, the Mulroney government replaced the War Measures Act with the Emergencies Act, which had much stricter limits. It eliminated the RCMP's intelligence role with the creation of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS. In doing so, it created a wall between intelligence and law enforcement, so as to limit abuses. Now these safeguards are preventing us from combatting foreign interference, and we are being asked to relax them. Okay, we understand that.
I repeat, the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑70 in principle, but not at the cost of civil liberties. This is an absolutely fundamental issue that demands the utmost vigilance on the part of legislators. We are in favour of passing the bill quickly at second reading, but we would be remiss if we did not conduct a serious study in committee. This must not be rushed through.
I would remind the House that the inefficiencies of the current legislation were designed to protect the people of Quebec from the excesses of the federal government. In light of the current rise in international tensions and the aggressiveness of certain countries, we must not diminish the protection our people enjoy from potential government abuses. Therefore, our work must be guided by a search for balance.
Bill C‑70 also protects certain operational secrets. Again, this is a necessary safeguard against foreign states with hostile intentions. We should not weaken our democracy in the name of protecting it. We saw this happen with the Winnipeg lab incident and, 15 years ago, with the Afghan detainees.
It is very difficult for Parliament to exercise the oversight that it must exercise when it requires access to classified information, not to mention frequent overclassification—as we saw with the Winnipeg lab—which makes sometimes innocuous information secret and hard to obtain. Even the Hogue commission, which was set up to shed light on foreign interference and help counter it, has complained that it did not have access to all the documents it requested because the Prime Minister's Office was reluctant to release them.
Morever, Bill C-70 seeks to better equip the justice system to fight foreign interference, so this bill sets out new offences that cover a broader range of harmful acts. It sets out new procedures that we hope will make it possible to prosecute offences, grant a fair trial and protect intelligence that would be harmful if disclosed.
Again, we are in favour of this in principle. However, these are fundamental issues of justice, and our work must be guided by a quest for balance. I repeat that a lot, because it is very important.
Bill C‑70 will also eliminate the requirement to prove that a criminal act benefited a foreign state or harmed Canada. Simply put, intimidation by a foreign state could become punishable, even if it does not produce the desired result. We are talking about attempts here. That means it will be possible to charge people who intimidate Canadian citizens or their families. People who are originally from totalitarian countries are particularly vulnerable.
Bill C‑70 also provides for consecutive sentences and even life imprisonment for certain offences. I understand the desire to impose harsher sentences, but listen to what the Canadian Civil Liberties Association had to say. It said, and I quote:
The availability of life imprisonment for certain offences introduced under Bill C‑70 is disproportionate and excessive. For example, a person convicted of an indictable offence under the Criminal Code, even as minimal as theft under $5,000, could be sentenced to life in prison if they acted for the benefit of a foreign entity.
I could cite numerous other examples of measures that will need to be closely scrutinized before they are approved or allowed to come into force.
I will end my speech by talking about the foreign agent registry. This registry should have been created a long time ago. The United States created theirs in 1930. Everyone agrees that a registry alone will not prevent foreign interference, but it is an essential tool to have in our tool box. The director of CSIS has said that a registry would be very useful. The European Union is currently working on a transparency register, and there are registries in other countries too. With a registry, it is easier to demonstrate that someone is working on behalf of a foreign state than to prove that the state interfered. Refusal to join the registry would become an offence in itself and it would be easier to punish than the crime of interference.
I am therefore pleased that the government is moving forward with the registry. It will improve the identification of people trying to influence public policy and of persons acting on behalf of a foreign state. I have spent a lot of time studying this topic. In fact, I drafted a bill to create this registry and I was about to introduce it before Bill C‑70 was tabled. However, the registry put forward in Bill C‑70 has gaps that I would like to try to fill in committee.
For example, although foreign agents are required to register, public office holders are not required to declare their interactions with foreign agents. The two-party registration of foreign agents and public office holders would allow for more thorough checks and enhance the registry's effectiveness. Furthermore, foreign agents have to report their contact with certain categories of people, but the list is too narrow to protect things like government-funded research activities, for example. In short, at committee stage, I intend to propose an expansion of the registry's scope to improve its effectiveness.
As a final point, I would like to take a closer look at the very concept of interference. Let us imagine, for example, that a foreign state sent a bunch of people to fill the room during a nomination to influence the choice of candidate. The foreign state would not have intervened directly with the government to influence public policy, but it would have obviously intervened in public political life. Would that situation be covered by the registry? I doubt it.
Another example is the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg. The Chinese agents working there had no desire to influence public policy. Rather, they wanted to monopolize the fruits of research paid for by Canadian taxpayers. Does Bill C-70 protect us from that? I doubt it.
I will conclude with a bit of a broader reflection. Protecting our constituents against interference is a profoundly democratic act. People have the right to control their political life and their social, economic and cultural development. This expression of democracy, which must be exercised freely, without undue pressure or interference, is fundamental to peoples' right to decide for themselves and assert their inalienable right to self-determination.
In committee, we will have disagreements on this or that clause of Bill C‑70, but I think that all the members of the House are united on the need to protect the inalienable right of the Canadian people to control their development without foreign interference. Under Bill C‑70, foreign states will be required to respect that right and stop interfering.
As long as we are requiring respect from others, we need to be honest about being respectful ourselves. Twenty-nine years ago, my people, the people of Quebec, were called to democratically exercise their own right to self-determination in a referendum on independence. What happened? Canada, the federal government, spent more on its campaign than the Yes and No camps combined in Quebec. That is serious interference. I am pleased to see that everyone in the House is, I note, unanimous in agreeing that interference in a people's choice is not good. We are making progress. We are getting somewhere.
I hope that the desire to protect Canadian democracy from foreign interference will engender the same respect for Quebec's democracy, because my people also need to be able to experience their democracy without interference.
2332 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, in small doses, candour can have a certain charm. It says that someone does not mean any harm. However, naivety is always a flaw because it stems from lack of judgment.
When it comes to foreign interference, the government has been very naive in recent years. This naivety is coupled with the government's standing flaw: pride. Pride prevents it from quickly admitting to and correcting its mistakes, and going so far as to hide what should be disclosed, even at the expense of the common good.
I am also pleased that Bill C‑70 represents a change in direction. I will say right off the bat that the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of Bill C‑70, countering foreign interference act. With this bill, the government is telling us, or trying to tell us, that it has finally shaken its naivety. That is a good start.
As always at the federal level, there is concern that efficiency is not the government's priority. These are things that can and should be corrected in committee and will not change the principle of the bill. As I was saying, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C‑70 at second reading. We hope it will be sent to committee quickly. Once we get to committee, we will have to be vigilant and careful, because this bill deals with fundamental issues
In fact, there are three main reasons for moving this update of Canadian laws along. The first reason is the international situation. These are tense times. There is a new cold war—not entirely cold, but more complex, with more players. Russia and China are more aggressive. Influence campaigns, lobbying and disinformation campaigns are on the rise.
We saw this five years ago with the case of the two Michaels. In December 2018, at Washington's request, Canada arrested Meng Wanzhou, the CFO of telecoms giant Huawei. Rather than go after the Americans, China preferred to go after its defenceless little brother, Canada. In retaliation, the Chinese government arrested two Canadian citizens in China and took trade measures against Canadian and Quebec farmers—
369 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
