SECU Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
Minutes of Proceedings
The witnesses answered questions.
The committee commenced its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.
Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of Clause 1 (short title) is postponed.
The Chair calls Clause 2.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 2 to 33 inclusive carried severally.
On Clause 34,
René Villemure moved, — That Bill C-70, in Clause 34, be amended(a) by replacing, in the French version, line 26 on page 12 with the following:
“quête ou de poursuites relatives à une contravention pré‐”
(b) by replacing, in the French version, line 31 on page 12 with the following:
“l’égard de cette contravention;”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of René Villemure and it was agreed to.
“Canada, other than personal information of an individual to whom the information is disclosed;”
Debate arose thereon.
Iqwinder Gaheer moved, — That the amendment be amended
(a) by replacing, in the English version, the word “an” with the word “the”
(b) by replacing, in the French version, the words “sauf les renseignements personnels” with the words “à l’exception des renseignements personnels”
(c) by replacing, in the French version, the word “destinée” with the word “faite”
(d) by replacing line 19 on page 13, with the following: “tity, other than the name of the corporation or entity to which the information is disclosed.”.
At 4:00 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 4:02 p.m., the meeting resumed.
The Chair ruled the modification to line 19 on page 13, in the proposed subamendment, inadmissible because it did not seek to modify the amendment and would need to be submitted as an amendment.
Iqwinder Gaheer moved, — That the amendment be amended
(a) by replacing, in the English version, the word “an” with the word “the”
(b) by replacing, in the French version, the words “sauf les renseignements personnels” with the words “à l’exception des renseignements personnels”
(c) by replacing, in the French version, the word “destinée” with the word “faite”.
After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Iqwinder Gaheer and it was agreed to.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo, as amended, and it was agreed to.
Clause 34, as amended, carried.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 35 to 41 inclusive carried severally.
On new Clause 41.1,
Iqwinder Gaheer moved, — That Bill C-70 be amended by adding after line 16 on page 22 the following:“41.1 (1) The portion of section 24 of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:
24 Despite any other law, a warrant issued under section 21, 22.21 or 23
(2) Paragraph 24(a) of the Act is amended by striking out “or” at the end of subparagraph (i) and by replacing subparagraph (ii) with the following:
(i.1) in the case of a warrant issued under section 22.21, to exercise the powers specified in the warrant for the purpose of obtaining information, records, documents or things of the type specified in the warrant, or
(ii) in the case of a warrant issued under section 23, to exercise the powers specified in the warrant for the purpose of removing the thing specified in the warrant; and”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Iqwinder Gaheer and it was agreed to.
On Clause 42,
Alistair MacGregor moved, — That Bill C-70, in Clause 42, be amended by replacing line 29 on page 22 with the following:“or variation of a production order may be heard in pri‐”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Alistair MacGregor and it was agreed to.
Clause 42, as amended, carried.
At 4:08 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 4:10 p.m., the meeting resumed.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 43 to 52 inclusive carried severally.
On Clause 53,
Alistair MacGregor moved, — That Bill C-70, in Clause 53, be amended(a) by replacing lines 5 and 6 on page 27 with the following:
“posed on a person for an offence under subsection (1) may be served consecutively to”
(b) by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 28 with the following:
“posed on a person for an offence under subsection (1) may be served consecutively to”
(c) by replacing lines 33 and 34 on page 28 with the following:
“posed on a person for an offence under subsection (1) may be served consecutively to”
(d) by replacing lines 19 and 20 on page 29 with the following:
“posed on a person for an offence under subsection (1) may be served consecutively to”
(e) by replacing lines 2 and 3 on page 30 with the following:
“posed on a person for an offence under subsection (1) may be served consecutively to”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Alistair MacGregor and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Alistair MacGregor, René Villemure — 2;
NAYS: Chris Bittle, Frank Caputo, Michael D. Chong, Iqwinder Gaheer, Lloyd Longfield, Heath MacDonald, Glen Motz, Doug Shipley, Salma Zahid — 9.
Clause 53 carried.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 54 to 60 inclusive carried severally.
On Clause 61,
Frank Caputo moved, — That Bill C-70, in Clause 61, be amended by replacing lines 14 and 15 on page 36 with the following:“cility or system, whether public or private, completed or under construction, that provides or distributes — or is intended to provide or distribute — services that are essential to the health,”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Frank Caputo and it was agreed to.
“52(1), 52.1(1) or 52.2(1) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General of Canada.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Alistair MacGregor and it was negatived.
Clause 61, as amended, carried.
At 4:21 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 4:23 p.m., the meeting resumed.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 62 to 112 inclusive carried severally.
On Clause 113,
Alistair MacGregor moved, — That Bill C-70, in Clause 113, be amended by replacing line 25 on page 75 with the following:“of an electoral platform by a political party, as well as all other appointments and elections within a political party, including leadership contests. (proces‐”
At 4:33 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 4:34 p.m., the meeting resumed.
After debate, by unanimous consent, the amendment was withdrawn.
(a) by replacing line 25 on page 75 with the following:
“of an electoral platform by a political party;
(g) any other process specified in the regulations. (proces‐”
(b) by adding after line 32 on page 84 the following:
“(b.1) specifying any other process for the purposes of the definition political or governmental process in section 2;”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of René Villemure and it was negatived.
“(a) any officer or employee of His Majesty in right of Canada and includes
(i) a member of the Senate or the House of Commons and any person on the staff of such a member,
(ii) a person who is appointed to any office or body by or with the approval of the Governor in Council or a minister of the Crown, other than a judge receiving a salary under the Judges Act or the lieutenant governor of a province,
(iii) an officer, director or employee of any federal board, commission or other tribunal, as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Federal Courts Act,
(iv) a member of the Canadian Forces, and
(v) a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police;
(b) members of the legislature of a province or persons on the staff of such members;
(c) employees of the government of a province;
(d) members of a council or other statutory body charged with the administration of the civil or municipal affairs of a city, town, municipality or district, persons on the staff of such members or officers or employees of a city, town, municipality or district;
(e) members of the council of a band, as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Indian Act, or of the council of an Indian band established by an Act of Parliament, persons on their staff or employees of such a council;
(f) members of an aboriginal government or institution that exercises jurisdiction or authority under a self-government agreement, or under self-government provisions contained in a land claims agreement, given effect by or under an Act of Parliament, persons on the staff of those members or employees of that government or institution;
(g) an officer or employee of an entity that represents the interests of First Nations, the Inuit or the Métis. (titulaire d’une charge publique)”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Alistair MacGregor and it was negatived.
“(b.1) municipal political or governmental processes; ”
Debate arose thereon.
Jennifer O'Connell moved, — That the amendment be amended
(a) by replacing line 16 on page 76 with the following: “(b) provincial, territorial, or municipal political or governmental”
(b) by deleting the words “(b.1) municipal political or governmental processes;”.
At 4:50 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 4:52 p.m., the meeting resumed.
The Chair ruled the proposed subamendment inadmissible because it did not seek to modify the amendment and would need to be submitted as an amendment.
Whereupon, Alistair MacGregor appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was overturned.
At 4:58 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 5:16 p.m., the meeting resumed.
By unanimous consent, the subamendment was withdrawn.
By unanimous consent, the amendment was withdrawn.
“(b) provincial, territorial, or municipal political or governmental”
By unanimous consent, the question was put on the amendment of Alistair MacGregor and it was agreed to.
(a) by adding after line 25 on page 76 the following:
“(d) the political or governmental processes of a federal or provincial Crown corporation;
(e) the political or governmental processes of a university or government research centre;
(f) any other political or governmental process specified in the regulations.”
(b) by adding after line 32 on page 84 the following:
“(b.1) specifying any other political or governmental process for the purposes of paragraph 4(f);”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of René Villemure and it was negatived.
“5.1 An individual, other than a public office holder, must file a return with the Commissioner, in the form and manner specified by the Commissioner, if that individual receives a communication from a foreign principal requesting that the individual
(a) take an action for the purpose of covertly influencing the results of an electoral process in Canada, including the nomination of a candidate;
(b) unduly influence an elector, within the meaning of subsection 282.4(2) of the Canada Elections Act; or
(c) perform any other act specified in the regulations.”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided on page 770 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
Whereupon, René Villemure appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Chris Bittle, Frank Caputo, Michael D. Chong, Iqwinder Gaheer, Heath MacDonald, Glen Motz, Jennifer O'Connell, Doug Shipley, Salma Zahid — 9;
NAYS: Alistair MacGregor, René Villemure — 2.
“5.1 A public office holder must file a return with the Commissioner, in the form and manner specified by the Commissioner, if
(a) they receive a communication intended to influence a political or governmental process; or
(b) they receive, as part of a communication relating to a political process, an offer of a gift or other advantage the acceptance of which would contravene the Conflict of Interest Act.”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided on page 770 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
Whereupon, René Villemure appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Chris Bittle, Frank Caputo, Michael D. Chong, Iqwinder Gaheer, Heath MacDonald, Glen Motz, Jennifer O'Connell, Doug Shipley, Salma Zahid — 9;
NAYS: Alistair MacGregor, René Villemure — 2.
“5.1 (1) A public office holder must file a return with the Commissioner, in the form and manner specified by the Commissioner, if
(a) they receive a communication intended to influence a political or governmental process; or
(b) they receive, as part of a communication relating to a political process, an offer of a gift or other advantage the acceptance of which would contravene the Conflict of Interest Act.
(2) An individual, other than a public office holder, must file a return with the Commissioner, in the form and manner specified by the Commissioner, if that individual receives a communication from a foreign principal requesting that the individual
(a) take an action for the purpose of covertly influencing the results of an electoral process in Canada, including the nomination of a candidate;
(b) unduly influence an elector, within the meaning of subsection 282.4(2) of the Canada Elections Act; or
(c) perform any other act specified in the regulations.
(3) An individual, including a researcher, faculty member or visiting researcher, who participates in a research project that is funded in whole or in part by the federal government must file a return with the Commissioner, in the form and manner specified by the Commissioner, if that individual receives a communication or a request for a meeting, made on behalf of a foreign principal, regarding the research project.”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided on page 770 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
Whereupon, René Villemure appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Chris Bittle, Frank Caputo, Michael D. Chong, Iqwinder Gaheer, Heath MacDonald, Glen Motz, Jennifer O'Connell, Doug Shipley, Salma Zahid — 9;
NAYS: Alistair MacGregor, René Villemure — 2.
“6.1 A former public office holder must not enter into an arrangement with a foreign principal for a period of three years after the day on which they cease to hold that office.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of René Villemure and it was negatived.
(a) by adding after line 3 on page 78 the following:
“Transparency Notices
8.1 (1) If the Commissioner is satisfied that a person is related to a foreign principal, the Commissioner may issue a transparency notice stating that the person is a foreign principal related entity or a foreign principal related individual, as the case may be.
(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), the Commissioner may compel a person to provide information or to produce documents or other things that the Commissioner considers necessary to determine whether the person is related to a foreign principal.
(3) A foreign principal related entity or a foreign principal related individual is deemed to be a foreign principal for the purposes of this Act.
(4) The transparency notice must be in writing and include any information that, in the Commissioner’s opinion, is necessary to identify the entity or individual who is the subject of the notice.
(5) The transparency notice must be accessible to the public and comes into force on the day after it is made accessible to the public.”
(b) by adding after line 32 on page 84 the following:
“(b.1) defining or determining what constitutes a person related to a foreign principal for the purposes of section 8.1;”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Alistair MacGregor and it was negatived.
(a) by replacing line 4 on page 78 with the following:
“9 (1) The Governor in Council is to appoint, by commission under the Great Seal, an individu-”
(b) by replacing lines 8 to 10 on page 78 with the following:
“(2) The appointment is to be made after
(a) consultation with
(i) the Leader of the Government in the Senate or”
(c) by replacing line 13 on page 78 with the following:
“(ii) the Leader or Facilitator of every other recognized”
(d) by replacing line 15 on page 78 with the following:
“(iii) the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Com‐”
(e) by replacing line 17 on page 78 with the following:
“(iv) the leader in the House of Commons of each party”
(f) by adding after line 18 on page 78 the following:
“(b) approval of the appointment by resolution of the Senate and House of Commons.”
(g) by replacing line 22 on page 78 with the following:
“on address of the Senate and House of Commons.”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided on page 770 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
Whereupon, Alistair MacGregor appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was overturned on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Chris Bittle, Iqwinder Gaheer, Heath MacDonald, Jennifer O'Connell, Salma Zahid — 5;
NAYS: Frank Caputo, Michael D. Chong, Alistair MacGregor, Glen Motz, Doug Shipley, René Villemure — 6.
(a) by replacing line 4 on page 78 with the following:
“9 (1) The Governor in Council is to appoint, by commission under the Great Seal, an individu-”
(b) by replacing lines 8 to 10 on page 78 with the following:
“(2) The appointment is to be made after
(a) consultation with
(i) the Leader of the Government in the Senate or”
(c) by replacing line 13 on page 78 with the following:
“(ii) the Leader or Facilitator of every other recognized”
(d) by replacing line 15 on page 78 with the following:
“(iii) the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Com‐”
(e) by replacing line 17 on page 78 with the following:
“(iv) the leader in the House of Commons of each party”
(f) by adding after line 18 on page 78 the following:
“(b) approval of the appointment by resolution of the Senate and House of Commons.”
(g) by replacing line 22 on page 78 with the following:
“on address of the Senate and House of Commons.”
At 5:45 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 5:51 p.m., the meeting resumed.
The debate continued.
Michael D. Chong moved, — That the amendment be amended
(a) by deleting the words “9 (1) The Governor in Council is to appoint, by commission under the Great Seal, an individu-”
(b) by deleting the words “on address of the Senate and House of Commons.”.
Debate arose thereon.
At 5:52 p.m., the meeting was suspended.
At 5:55 p.m., the meeting resumed.
After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Michael D. Chong and it was agreed to.
The question was put on the amendment of Alistair MacGregor, as amended, and it was agreed to.
“at any time on address of the Senate and House of Commons.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of René Villemure and it was negatived.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Alistair MacGregor and it was negatived.
(a) by replacing line 2 on page 85 with the following:
“purposes of section 5, including any additional information to be provided in relation to foreign principals whose names appear on the list established under subsection (2);”
(b) by adding after line 20 on page 85 the following:
“(2) The Governor in Council may, by regulation, establish a list on which the Governor in Council may place the name of a foreign principal if, on the recommendation of the Minister, in consultation with the Commissioner, the Governor in Council is of the opinion that the foreign principal is of particular concern with regard to foreign interference in matters relating to Canada’s national security.
(3) The Minister must cause each regulation that is proposed to be made under subsection (2) to be tabled in each House of Parliament at least 15 sitting days before its effective date.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Alistair MacGregor and it was negatived.
“the end of each fiscal year, prepare an annual report on their activities during that year and submit it to the Speakers of the Senate and the House of Commons, who must each table it in the House over which they preside without delay after receiving it or, if that House is not then sitting, on any of the first 15 days on which that House is sitting after they receive it.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of René Villemure and it was negatived.
“29 The Commissioner may, at any time, prepare a special report on any matter that is within the scope of their powers, duties and functions and submit it to the Speakers of the Senate and the House of Commons, who must each table the report in the House over which they preside without delay after receiving it or, if that House is not then sitting, on any of the first 15 days on which that House is sitting after they receive it.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of René Villemure and it was negatived.
“31 (1) During the first year after a general election, a comprehensive review of this Act and its operation”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of René Villemure and it was agreed to.
“32 (1) The Minister must, no later than 90 days after the day on which the report referred to in subsection 31(2) is submitted, cause to be tabled in each House of Parliament a response that addresses each of the changes recommended in the report.
(2) If the Minister decides to implement any of the recommended changes, the response must include the time frame for doing so.”
Debate arose thereon.
Jennifer O'Connell moved, — That the amendment be amended
(a) by replacing the word “90” with the word “120”
(b) by deleting the words “(2) If the Minister decides to implement any of the recommended changes, the response must include the time frame for doing so.”.
After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Jennifer O'Connell and it was agreed to on division.
The question was put on the amendment of René Villemure, as amended, and it was agreed to.
“Transitional Provisions
32 If, before the day on which paragraph 4(a) comes into force, a person has entered into an arrangement with a foreign principal in relation to a process referred to in that paragraph and the arrangement is in force on that day, then subsection 5(1) applies to the person but the required information must be provided within 60 days after that day.
33 If, before the day on which paragraph 4(b) comes into force, a person has entered into an arrangement with a foreign principal in relation to a process referred to in that paragraph and the arrangement is in force on that day, then subsection 5(1) applies to the person but the required information must be provided within 60 days after that day.
34 If, before the day on which paragraph 4(c) comes into force, a person has entered into an arrangement with a foreign principal in relation to a process referred to in that paragraph and the arrangement is in force on that day, then subsection 5(1) applies to the person but the required information must be provided within 60 days after that day.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Iqwinder Gaheer and it was agreed to.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 114 to 117 inclusive carried severally.
Clause 1, Short Title, carried.
Schedule 1 carried.
Schedule 2 carried.
The Title carried.
The Bill, as amended, was adopted.
ORDERED, — That the Chair report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
ORDERED, — That Bill C-70, as amended, be reprinted for the use of the House of Commons at report stage.
Frank Caputo moved, — Given that, the Liberal Parliamentary Secretary, said “Boo hoo, get over it” when the committee was questioning the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs, the Hon. Dominic Leblanc, about elected MPs that have knowingly helped hostile foreign countries and worked against Canada’s interests;
That, the committee call on MP Jennifer O’Connell to apologize to all Canadians of diaspora communities who are the targets of foreign interference and to all Canadians concerned about the integrity of our institutions and report this finding to the House.
Debate arose thereon.
The question was put on the motion and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Frank Caputo, Dane Lloyd, Glen Motz, Doug Shipley — 4;
NAYS: Chris Bittle, Iqwinder Gaheer, Heath MacDonald, Jennifer O'Connell, René Villemure, Salma Zahid — 6.
At 6:42 p.m., the committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.