THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 18, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs met with videoconference this day at 8:02 a.m. [ET] to consider Bill C-70, An Act respecting countering foreign interference; and, in camera, to discuss observations.
Senator Jean-Guy Dagenais (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Before we begin, I would like to ask all senators and other in-person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents.
Please take note of the following preventative measures in place to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters. If possible, ensure that you are seated in a manner that increases the distance between microphones. Only use an approved black earpiece. The former grey earpieces must no longer be used. Keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. When you are not using your earpiece, place it face down on the sticker placed on the table for this purpose. Thank you all for your cooperation.
[Translation]
Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs. I am Jean-Guy Dagenais, a senator from Quebec and deputy chair of the committee.
Our chair, Senator Tony Dean, is the sponsor of Bill C-70, which we will be examining this week and, therefore, he has asked me to chair these proceedings. Before we begin, I would invite the committee members participating in today’s meeting to introduce themselves, beginning on my left.
Senator Carignan: Good morning. Claude Carignan from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Patterson: Rebecca Patterson, senator for Ontario.
Senator Boehm: Peter Boehm, Ontario.
Senator M. Deacon: Welcome. Marty Deacon, Ontario.
Senator Woo: Yuen Pau Woo, British Columbia.
Senator McNair: John McNair, New Brunswick.
Senator Anderson: Margaret Dawn Anderson, Northwest Territories.
Senator Cardozo: Andrew Cardozo, Ontario.
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, Ontario.
Senator Yussuff: Hassan Yussuff, Ontario.
Senator Dean: Tony Dean, Ontario.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, colleagues.
[English]
Today, we proceed to the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-70, An Act respecting countering foreign interference.
[Translation]
I’d like to welcome officials from the Department of Justice Canada and Public Safety Canada, who are with us in the room to assist with any questions the committee may have. Before we begin, I would like to remind senators of a number of points.
If at any point a senator is not clear where we are in the process, please ask for clarification.
When more than one amendment is proposed to be moved in a clause, amendments should be proposed in the order of the lines of a clause. If a senator is opposed to an entire clause, the proper process is not to move a motion to delete the entire clause but to vote against the clause as standing as part of the bill.
[English]
Some amendments that are moved might have consequential effects on other parts of the bill. It is therefore useful to this process if a senator moving an amendment identifies to the committee other clauses in this bill where this amendment could have an effect.
[Translation]
If committee members ever have any questions about the process or about the propriety of anything occurring, they can raise a point of order. As chair I will listen to the arguments, decide when there has been sufficient discussion of a matter or order and make a ruling.
[English]
The committee is the ultimate master of its business within the bounds established by the Senate, and a ruling can be appealed to the full committee by asking whether the ruling shall be sustained.
[Translation]
If there is ever any uncertainty as to the results of a voice vote or a show of hands, the most effective route is to request a roll call vote.
Finally, senators are aware that any tied vote negates the motion in question.
Are there any questions on any of the above? I think Senator Cardozo had a question.
[English]
Senator Cardozo: I appreciate the opportunity to ask a few general questions before we get to clause-by-clause consideration. It is with regard to the pace at which we are dealing with this bill.
I appreciate the opportunity we had in the past week with the pre-study. We’ve gone through a lot of the details, but over that period and certainly over the last few days, we’ve heard from a lot of Canadians who are concerned about the pace with which we are examining this bill, as well as some concerns about some of the clauses.
I wonder if we could have any thoughts from officials about this. One of the thoughts I had was whether we could split the bill into two and deal now with Part 4, which sets up the commission and the registry, which are the urgent pieces. Then, perhaps, we could come back in the fall and review the rest of the bill. Would that be a possibility?
Here is the added part of this that is interesting: The House has made a few changes to the bill, one of which is to have the commissioner appointed by Parliament, which is an amendment I agree with. The only thing about that is that unless that appointment is made in the next few days, while both houses are in session, the appointment won’t be completed until the fall, because the appointment now requires the two houses of Parliament to approve the appointment. I suppose we could come back during the summer at some point to do that. It is much harder for us to do it; it is easier for them to do it because they can meet in a hybrid format, and we can’t. I don’t know how we could even make a decision to meet in a hybrid way, because we can’t change that rule — unless someone knows differently.
So, given that we are not going to be able to appoint and Parliament is not going to be able to approve that person until the fall, unless we do it this week, would it make sense to approve Part 4 now and at least get some of those mechanisms in place and approve the rest in the fall?
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Before I ask the officials to answer your question, I see that Senator Yussuff and Senator Dean also have questions. I would ask the officials to answer this question as to whether the bill could be split.
[English]
Richard Bilodeau, Director General, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness: Good morning, senators.
In regard to your first question, Bill C-70 proposes a number of measures that are intended to counter foreign interference and equip different agencies, police and a future foreign influence transparency commissioner with a number of tools to combat foreign interference. They all work together in the sense that one tool is not the answer to all foreign interference issues. All of them will play a significant role in building our resilience and giving the government more tools.
Information sharing is a good example of where the service will be able to share more information to increase the resilience of other levels of government and the private sector. All of those pieces together strengthen our resilience. Decisions on whether to make amendments and split are not mine, obviously, in this place.
In terms of your second question, from a procedural perspective, it is still the Governor-in-Council who appoints the commissioner, but then that appointment has to be approved by both houses of Parliament. The process to name a Governor-in-Council appointee is run by the Privy Council Office. There is usually a call for nominations. It sets out the kind of person we are looking for. The process of vetting needs to start so that the Governor-in-Council can come to a decision to put in front of the House. Once that process gets going, we expect it to take some time — not a long period of time, necessarily. But there still needs to be a merit-based process to identify candidates and then choose one of those candidates.
I will just say that about the process, and I hope that informs you and your colleagues.
Senator Cardozo: I have one other general question, if I might.
One — or maybe both — of the ministers, in response to our questions about the speed of this process, said there had been consultation going on for the past year or more. How detailed would that consultation have been? Would some of the people, the civil liberties groups and others, have looked at some of the specific clauses? It is one thing to say what should be in a bill. It’s another to say, “Here are some clauses we are looking at. What do you think?”
My question is this: In specific reference to some of the concerns we’ve been hearing in the last few days from people who feel they have not had a chance to respond to some of the specific clauses, have any of these specific clauses been shared with people over the past year or two?
Mr. Bilodeau: My apologies for being presumptuous and asking my two colleagues to join me, because I think they have a significant part of this answer.
Senator Cardozo: We appreciate it.
Mr. Bilodeau: Generally speaking, I would say that over the past year, we held consultations dedicated to the foreign influence transparency registry, consultations on the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act changes and consultations on the Security of Information Act, the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act.
Each of those consultations were accompanied by a fairly detailed consultation paper and a number of round tables with different stakeholders and groups of stakeholders. I think we held over 88 round tables over the course of the past year, including round tables with Indigenous groups.
I can turn it over to my colleague Sarah Estabrooks, who can speak in more detail about the consultations that they co-led on the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, or CSIS Act.
Sarah Estabrooks, Director General, Policy and Foreign Relations, Canadian Security Intelligence Service: With regard to the question about civil liberties groups, one of the issues that came up in the consultations surrounded the service’s warrant powers. Some of the feedback really pointed to the need for the Federal Court engagement on any of the service’s warrants. That is, in fact, the future of the bill. The bill proposes that the service be able to seek three new judicial authorizations. All of those would need to be issued by the Federal Court. That provides the assurance that the activity conforms to the Charter and is protective of the privacy rights of Canadians. Those three new powers proposed in this bill indeed reflect the kind of input that we received.
Another piece of the input really spoke to the interest on the part of a wide variety of stakeholders in having more engagement with the service — getting more access to information so they can take steps to protect their own research, communities and interests. That information-sharing piece in the bill was very much informed by the input of stakeholders.
However, one critical point came up repeatedly, which was a concern about the sharing of personal information. That element is reflected as well in the amendments as designed. The broad provision to share information to build resiliency prohibits the sharing of the personal information of an individual or an entity incorporated in Canada. As well, there is a separate provision by which, with the minister’s approval and when it is deemed to be in the public interest — so it is a much, much higher test — personal information could be shared.
The House amended the bill slightly to allow for the sharing of the personal information “to whom you are speaking” — the personal information of the individual engaged in the conversation. But that broad protection for the disclosure of personal information exists in the bill and, again, was very much informed by stakeholder input.
Mark Scrivens, Senior Counsel, Department of Justice Canada: Briefly, senators, the Department of Justice also participated in the consultations, alongside CSIS, with respect to the CSIS Act. We heard from and engaged with civil liberties organizations — some of the same organizations you are hearing from now. Both during the consultation process and then in recent follow-ups, beyond the round tables, we received written submissions from those same groups.
I can tell you that the design of the Security of Information Act, or SOIA, amendments was informed and altered as a result of the feedback received from these very groups. In particular, the scope of the political interference offence was informed by comments we heard from these groups.
Senator Yussuff: Thank you to the officials for the feedback you are providing in regard to the consultations.
Like my colleague, many of us have had to examine this very comprehensive piece of legislation with — I would say — a bit of haste. A lot of people came here and testified, including you and the ministers, and I think there is a compelling argument that we need to do something to protect the country’s integrity in regard to its institutions — Parliament, that is, and those who are elected — but equally regarding the question of how we stop foreign governments from interfering in our democratic system and security to protect the nation.
I am satisfied that a lot of good work has been done, but I feel there are still some concerns. We didn’t have adequate time to hear from those people who fundamentally believe that, given their experience with past bills that had to do with national security and that left them with a corrosive feeling, we didn’t take enough care to ensure that we are protecting them.
There are two areas of concern. Obviously, you have heard from civil liberties organizations wherein there are some serious concerns about how this bill might implicate protests and such activities and how they could be the subject of targeting and actions that are not what was intended.
On the other hand, we also heard from academic institutions in regard to the important work they do in collaboration with other colleagues around the world and the important research in trying to ascertain a better way that our country can position itself in the research they do to create new products or, for that matter, researching issues that are very important to the country.
After listening to some of these people — and I’m not known as an overly cautious individual — I recognize that we do need to hear more. I know the regulatory process is yet to begin. We will have an opportunity to understand what that may look like, but it is a process on its own. I know it will be publicly gazetted for people to comment on.
Given the timing to pass this bill, I have a couple of questions. One is that the House did make one important decision on which I want to compliment them. Immediately after the next election, this bill will be subject to review. I think that’s a very positive assurance to the country that we will do what is necessary. I also recognize that we are not the elected people. They are in the other place, and they want this legislation. I value the fact that they put themselves out to get elected and, more importantly, they want this legislation in place for the next election.
Therefore, my question is more to do with our own process here in the Senate. Can we adopt a motion that would allow us to examine the regulatory process of the appointment of a commissioner and to hear from those who may still have some concerns about this bill, recognizing, of course, that we are running against the clock and that we have to adopt the bill before the Senate rises on Thursday?
If we were to do so, it would certainly satisfy my concerns — because I didn’t put forward an amendment to adjust parts of the bill — but it would also reassure those who have been writing to us and commenting to us that we have taken their consideration in a very serious way.
We will continue to do our work, as we are known for in this chamber. It is our job to do that in a way that continues to give compliments to the people who bring serious concerns to us, and we should hear from them.
The question is for the clerk. Is there a way we can construct such a motion that will give us some opportunity to pick up this issue when we come back in the fall after our summer adjournment?
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: I’ll ask the clerk to comment on your question.
[English]
Andrea Mugny, Clerk of the Committee: Thank you, senator, for the question. If you are referring to the committee studying the bill after it has been adopted, certainly if the committee wishes to do a study of the implementation of the bill, that’s something that committees have done in the past.
Senator Dean: First of all, I want to strongly endorse the recommendation made by Senator Yussuff. I’m not sure I fully agree with the front‑end analysis, but I’m supportive of the back-end proposal. I think a lot of good work has been done and more can be done.
If there’s a committee that I would have confidence in to monitor the additional work that is required in terms of regulations and protecting the public interest and finding the right balance between ensuring security of persons and protecting vulnerable persons who have told us they need the protection of this bill, I believe it is this committee. So, I’m fully endorsing Senator Yussuff’s motion. We’ve heard that it can be done. We would need an order of reference to do that once the bill is passed.
We are dealing with the regulation of harms here. Harms are occurring while we speak, across this country. This is important. It is urgent. I don’t think we have time to spare. Senator Yussuff’s proposal is a really artful balance. It allows our public service experts and colleagues to continue doing their work and to complete that work, but as the regulatory process unfolds, we can have eyes on that. As drafts are produced, we can have eyes on them at the same time as others.
We are dealing with existing and known threats. It is affecting our electoral process as we speak. It is a big bill, but we’ve learned that it isn’t a complex bill. We understand it now far better than we did before. We have heard directly from those who are concerned about individual rights multiple times. We understand those concerns very well and we are sensitive to them; they haven’t been lost in this discussion. We will likely hear more from them.
We know the issues. We are debating the issues. We have the capacity to do this. The appointment of a commissioner is not a requirement for us to continue our work and get our work done; it’s an important step in the process.
Diaspora groups that are affected by foreign interference want and need this legislation. We have all heard from some of them, and they are pretty nasty stories; they are ugly stories. We have to move apace. Again, Senator Yussuff, your advice to us is good, and I strongly endorse it. It allows everyone to accomplish what they would like to do in that sense.
We will keep a keen eye on the work as it continues, but we will not hold up the important work that needs to be done to get this project completed in a timely way. Thank you.
Senator Patterson: I will start with an observation, and then I will have a question for clarification, a more technical aspect, based on some of my colleagues’ comments.
To begin with, when I listened to the requirement to balance that protection of individual rights with the collective rights and obligations that come for the entire society, that really is what we are balancing out here. We’ve heard compelling arguments on both sides. As I say, with rights come obligations. With us having that role as unelected officials to try and find that balance, I want to thank you for that, Senator Yussuff. Again, like Senator Dean, I am compelled by the back-end argument that you’re talking about, going through and looking at the implementation process.
I feel more confident now knowing there will be a review once we have gone through the next electoral cycle. Then it will swing me over to a technical question about this bill grosso modo and previous comments I have heard. Doing nothing is not an option. Canadians have told us it is not an option. The House of Commons has come forward and said it is not an option to do nothing. The longer we wait, the more it can impact Canadian electoral politics and the more interference there will be. With every decision comes a timeline, and that’s why that fine balance between everything we’ve heard is key.
I would like to talk about this bill writ large together and for some clarification purposes and to come back to Senator Cardozo’s question about dissecting out the registry up front. This is to clarify my understanding of what this bill is trying to achieve.
I’ve heard a lot about how the registry won’t catch the bad actors. Well, we know that. If I have a driver’s licence and I choose to speed, there is a consequence for that. I believe you used that analogy as well.
My understanding is, with the registry, in order for it to be effective, there are voluntary people who will automatically put their names down and they are out in public. There are challenges with that; we recognize that fact. The bad actors, if you are not there, if you can separate some of the components, they become slightly more obvious and slightly more apparent as the public becomes more aware of what foreign interference is.
If we were just to sever out part of this bill or make that recommendation moving forward, I am assuming that all you will have is a list of people, places and things, because what you actually require are changes within CSIS, with how we collect and store information, how we share. I’m not sure if that’s the message you were sending. If we cleave out one piece, the registry, for example, it’s like “sign up for the library” — I’m sorry, that sounded pejorative. It was not intended. But I do need to understand how they all interlink. The registry is a tool within legislation that allows us to enact the tool — not just the tool, many other things.
If you could, please, provide some clarification on that, that would be helpful.
Mr. Bilodeau: Thank you, senator, for that question. The registry is an important transparency tool. You are correct that bad actors will seek not to register because they don’t want to be made known. However, by mandating transparency, it gives you a better idea of who you don’t need to worry about because they are being transparent. It allows the RCMP, CSIS and others to focus on individuals who are not being transparent.
In addition, the commissioner will have tools to try to detect those actors who are trying to circumvent the law by working with CSIS, the RCMP and others. You are quite correct that the registry being part of the answer by not catching every bad actor, it has a deterrent effect on people who will seek to circumvent. Knowing that if you do that and you try to act surreptitiously, then the changes that are being brought into SOIA come into play at that point, or there is information that the service can share with provinces or territories or private actors to build their resilience.
It is a little bit like water; it finds the path of least resistance. That’s why you need to be able to close off as many paths as possible.
Mr. Scrivens: Thank you. My friend described the role of the registry, which deals with the regulation of legal activities, legal connections with foreign states, and regulates and provides a framework for those activities. The criminal law proposals deal with, obviously, the more serious types of foreign interference activities, not only in respect of interference with our democratic institutions as political and governmental processes but also in terms of how they impact individuals in Canada, which is very much separate from what the registry will do.
This committee has heard some very serious and compelling stories from individuals on what they have encountered. The criminal law aspects address in part things that are separate from interference, from lobbying connections with foreign states and potential interference or engagement with our political institutions.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: We are at clause-by-clause consideration. We’re not at third reading speeches nor at the stage when witnesses appear, so I propose that we proceed immediately to clause-by-clause consideration.
The Deputy Chair: We need to confirm that everyone agrees with your proposal.
Is it agreed that we proceed to clause-by-clause consideration?
[English]
Senator Boehm: With all respect to Senator Carignan, I still wanted to make a comment before we go to clause by clause.
Senator Dasko: I also had a comment to make. I don’t agree with just stopping this conversation right now. That would be unfair, in my opinion.
Senator Dean: I think to allow those who haven’t spoken to briefly intervene, chair — I too take the view this is a clause-by-clause hearing. We have had substantial discussions, so some brief additional comments from those who haven’t spoken, I think, would only be fair right now.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Following Senator Carignan’s suggestion to proceed to clause-by-clause, we will now vote. I would ask those in favour of proceeding to clause-by-clause consideration to raise their hands. I would ask those in favour of continuing the discussion and allowing other senators to share their observations to raise their hands. I see we have a majority vote, so we will continue the discussion.
[English]
Senator Dean: I would add the caveat of one question or one comment per senator so we allow for those who haven’t spoken. I would prefer — and this is just a preference — that we provide our own advice and commentary and that we don’t continue in a hearing style that is necessarily engaging those who are here to help us with technical questions as opposed to wading back into a hearing, which has been completed already.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: If I understand correctly, Senator Dean, you would like each senator to have a chance to comment before proceeding to clause-by-clause consideration. I will begin on my left, with Senator Carignan.
Senator Carignan: Your left is the other side.
The Deputy Chair: I must say that you are absolutely correct. We will begin on my right.
Senator Carignan: That’s fine. I’ve already made my comments.
[English]
Senator Boehm: I am going to make a couple of points and one general point.
First of all, I don’t think we should divide up this bill. That will take a long time. It will delay things. Let us recall what Dick Fadden told us: The longer we wait, the more it is to the advantage of malign actors.
On the proposal by Senator Yussuff, I agree completely. We did a pre-study because there was a time element here. There is nothing preventing a committee in charge of its own fate to conduct a post-study or to conduct an evergreen study to accompany the development of the regulations. This will allow for greater transparency and more public confidence in the process.
It would also be a response to those who have been contacting us others about concerns related to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or IRPA, and as we heard yesterday, the definition of the word “intimidation.” I’ll stop there. Thank you.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for the opportunity to speak, but my point has just been made.
Senator Dasko: I want to echo the concerns that have been raised earlier. I’m very troubled by the speed at which we are dealing with this incredibly important and complex bill. Yesterday at the briefing that was held for senators, many senators expressed concerns about the bill, in particular with respect to possible overreach. The meeting, in fact, had to end after a certain period of time, but I could tell that there were even many other senators in that briefing who were very concerned.
We have had excellent witnesses at this committee — clearly excellent — but we have not covered the issues anywhere nearly as thoroughly as we should have. We have had a process where — given the length of it and given the end of it right now — we have had very little opportunity to consider amendments to this bill. It’s like a train going down the track. That’s the way I feel. I’m very frustrated.
We have talked about the possibility of a study after, and actually, I just have a question for the clerk. You mentioned this could be an implementation study, but it doesn’t have to be limited to an implementation study, does it? The way I see it is that we have issues that have not been fully addressed. I know it’s far from perfect to try to do this after a bill is passed. What can we do with the bill? Essentially nothing, but perhaps we can explore it more. I just wanted to make sure I understood that you were suggesting an implementation study, but that it wouldn’t have to be limited to an implementation study. That’s the question.
Ms. Mugny: The committee can go to the Senate to ask for an order of reference and frame the study in a way that it sees fit. If the bill is passed and given Royal Assent, the committee would not be able to necessarily make changes. It can certainly still study it in a way that it sees fit. You would need to seek an order of reference from the chamber.
Senator Dasko: All right. Colleagues, those are my concerns. Thank you.
Senator Cardozo: Briefly, I think this whole bill and the process is one of balancing. We’re balancing rights, and we’re balancing concerns. The issues around foreign interference are very real and very dangerous for a lot of people. We have to take that seriously.
I think that given where we’re at, the proposal by Senator Yussuff is a good one, and I’m prepared to move to clause by clause once we have heard from everyone and come back to some of these issues in the fall.
Senator Anderson: I have nothing to add. It has already been said.
Senator McNair: I also endorse Senator Yussuff’s recommendation. I think it’s the appropriate solution.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Now that everyone has had a chance to speak, is it agreed that we proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-70, An Act respecting countering foreign interference?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: With leave, is it agreed that the committee be allowed to group clauses according to the parts of the bill and their divisions as described in the table of provisions of Bill C-70, when appropriate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: We now move on to Part 1: Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, clauses 2 (page 1) to 48 (page 24).
Shall Part 1, entitled Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, which contains clauses 2 to 48, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: We are at Part 2, entitled Measures to Counter Foreign Interference.
Part 2, Division 1, Security of Information Act, which contains clauses 49 on page 24 to 59 on page 35.
Shall Part 2, Division 1, entitled Security of Information Act, which contains clauses 49 to 59, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: We are at Part 2, Division 2, Criminal Code, which contains clauses 60 on page 36 to 71 on page 41.
Shall Part 2, Division 2, entitled Criminal Code, which contains clauses 60 to 71, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: We’re looking at Part 2, Division 3: Coordinating Amendments and Coming into Force, clauses 72 (page 41) to 75 (page 43).
Shall Part 2, Division 3, entitled Coordinating Amendments and Coming into Force, which contains clauses 72 to 75, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Part 3: Measures Relating to the Protection of Information. Part 3, Division 1: Canada Evidence Act, clauses 76 (page 43) to 99 (page 67).
Shall Part 3, Division 1, entitled Canada Evidence Act, which contains clauses 76 to 99, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: We are now at Part 3, Division 2, Criminal Code, clause 100, page 67.
Shall Part 3, Division 2, entitled Criminal Code, which contains clause 100, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Part 3, Division 3, Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which contains clauses 101 on page 68 to 107 on page 70.
Shall Part 3, Division 3, entitled Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which contains clauses 101 to 107, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: We move on to Part 3, Division 4: Transitional Provisions, Coordinating Amendments and Coming into Force, clauses 108 (page 70) to 112 (page 73).
Shall Part 3, Division 4, entitled Transitional Provisions, Coordinating Amendments and Coming into Force, which contains clauses 108 to 112, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Part 4, Foreign Influence Transparency and Accountability Act, which contains clauses 113 on page 73 to 117 on page 89.
Shall Part 4, entitled Foreign Influence Transparency and Accountability Act, which contains clauses 113 to 117, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Schedules.
Shall Schedule 1, pages 90 to 94, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Shall Schedule 2 (page 95) carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report?
I believe we’ve received some observations.
We will clarify things, because we did receive some observations.
[English]
Senator Dasko: Senator Deacon and I have also submitted observations that I believe have been circulated. There may be others, but I know that she and I both made observations.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Do committee members agree with the observation? Obviously, there will be observations, and I suggest that we continue the meeting in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)