Your Honour, through you, senator, thank you for a very good question. To honourable senators, thank you for the work you did in passing what the government thinks is one of the most significant modernizations of our intelligence capacity as a country.

Senator, you zeroed in on the foreign influence transparency commissioner, an essential part of that legislation. I recognize the urgency — and I’ve said so publicly — of having the designated person before this place and the House of Commons. I thought it was a thoughtful amendment to ensure that parliamentarians absolutely participate in this process. As you said, the credentials of this person must be impeccable.

I completely share your concern, which I have heard from many others, around the importance of certain communities in Canada — visible minority communities in particular — feeling that this structure, which should be designed to protect them, could be something that they would feel targeted by.

I continue to work with the department and Privy Council to prepare a short list and look forward to putting before this house and the place where I serve the name of a very eminent and qualified Canadian that I hope will receive your blessing.

Your Honour, it won’t surprise you that I don’t share the senator’s characterization at the end of the question. “Draconian,” and “over-broad” aren’t words that I would have used. I think this was an effective, targeted piece of legislation that met with quick approval. You choose to say it was rushed through. I wouldn’t propose to think that the government would rush something through this chamber. We haven’t been that lucky on previous occasions.

I very much appreciated the work that was done here and in the House of Commons. I can speak to this because I was a witness to the multi-partisan work in the House of Commons, and I think this is an important legislative accomplishment.