There are, however, some key limitations to some of the provisions in the bill compared to what allied countries have, legal experts say.
What Has Been Asked For
Longtime human rights lawyer David Matas says one of the changes proposed in the bill shows that someone in the corresponding governmental department was observing the limitations that people like him have been pointing out when it comes to seeking justice for those targeted by foreign powers.“The component that strikes me as most noteworthy, other than the registry and disclosure provisions, is the provision addressing foreign interference not directed to governments,” Mr. Matas told The Epoch Times.
“The current law is tied to Canadian interests,” Mr. Matas says. This requirement has made prosecution of cases where a foreign entity is involved in intimidation and harassment of individuals in Canada more difficult, he says.
“The new law considerably expands the old law, providing more detail–detail which will make its enforcement more likely,” Mr. Matas said.
The act specifies that the new sabotage offences don’t apply to acts of protest where there is no intention to cause serious harm.
In addition, the bill introduces a new criminal offence for possessing or distributing a computer program, such as “bots,” meant for a sabotage operation against essential infrastructure.
Another change proposed in the bill is adding more provisions to criminalize inappropriate sharing of military technology and knowledge under the revised Security of Information Act.
“It remains to be seen whether the SARP process is the most efficacious in terms of meaningfully facilitating the use of intelligence in an open court,” Gowling WLG notes in an online post about the bill.
Other Features
Bill C-70 specifically mentions interference with the nomination process of an election candidate as one of the activities considered a criminal offence.The issue of irregularities during the nomination process has been highlighted in the ongoing foreign interference inquiry, with intelligence reports indicating that international students were bused in under the coercion of the Chinese Consulate to vote for the Liberal nomination of Han Dong in a Toronto riding ahead of the 2019 election. Mr. Dong, who went on to win the 2019 race and was re-elected in 2021, has denied involvement with these incidents.
The provision is part of a newly introduced offence which on a broader level makes it an indictable offence to interfere with a political or governmental process under the direction of a foreign entity. The offence is punishable by up to life in prison.
“Today’s school board trustee may become tomorrow’s Member of Parliament,” the report says.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is also known for its targeting of educational institutions, including having its Confucius Institutes (CIs) hosted at schools and universities abroad in the name of cultural exchange.
CSIS Sharing and Foreign Agent Registry
Just ahead of the announcement of the new bill, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith had publicly called on the federal government to make legislative changes that enable CSIS to brief provinces on intelligence relating to risks.With Bill C-70, CSIS would be allowed to disclose sensitive information to non-federal entities as required. These would include provincial and municipal governments, businesses, and researchers.
The United States has had a foreign agent registration law since 1938, while Australia initiated one in 2017 and the UK in 2023 amid heightened interference by Beijing.
While some have questioned how effective the measure is—such as former Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who argued that those who register are “the honest ones”—a foreign interference law at the very least can be a deterrent.
As well, some have suggested that Australia’s law could have been made more effective by making it not “country-agnostic” and by acknowledging that it is regimes like the CCP that are most hostile.
But Canada’s version of the registry could have even more limitations than what allies have introduced, international lawyer Lawrence Herman says.
In Canada’s proposed version of a registry, these arrangements include only communications by foreign agents with a “public office holder,” or communications with the members of the public only when a “political or governmental process” is involved. The bill wouldn’t cover registration for actions meant to influence Canadian public opinion, Mr. Herman gives as an example.
“This is much narrower than what Canada’s allies have in place,” he said.
He says another shortcoming with the bill is the exemptions, including those involving “religious, scholastic, or scientific activities.”
“This latter exclusion seems unduly broad and would eliminate, for example, arrangements with persons in Canada directly or indirectly connected with the Chinese government or the Chinese Communist Party that concern scientific research at universities or quasi-governmental bodies like the National Research Council,” Mr. Herman said.
Debates
The issue of security versus privacy is another concern that has been raised about Bill C-70.“For instance, subject to ministry approval, [CSIS] could disclose information obtained in the performance of its duties and functions to ‘any person or entity’. Under current legislation, such disclosure is limited to state officials. This proposed expansion of [CSIS’s] power must be subjected to stricter limits to protect privacy rights.”
Other concerns have been raised regarding the security aspect as well.
While the bill bolsters provisions to protect sensitive information, it still allows a suspect, if there has been a conviction, to appeal a court decision to prevent disclosure of certain information.
Calvin Chrustie, a former senior operations officer with the RCMP, says security agencies of allied countries, or even witnesses, might be reluctant to trust Canada’s judiciary system with their sensitive information and might hesitate before helping in the prosecution of a case for that reason.
“Unless there are built-in mechanisms for the police and the public to have confidence and be empowered to protect this information and the people providing the information and the organizations’ information, I’m not sure how that’s going to build any confidence with witnesses, organizations, and our allies,” Mr. Chrustie, now a senior partner with the Critical Risk Team consulting firm, said in an interview.
Phil Gurski, a veteran of CSIS and the Communications Security Establishment, said he will also be watching with a lot of interest what the real implications of this new bill will be for the protection of sensitive information in judicial proceedings. He said he expects there will be legal challenges launched against efforts to prevent disclosure of sensitive information in courts.
“Canada has tended to be more open in terms of what should be disclosed in the court, so I’d be curious to see how they get around that,” he told The Epoch Times.
But more broadly, the security professionals agree that it takes a more comprehensive approach by the government to tackle foreign interference.
Getting to the Root of the Issue
Mr. McGregor, co-author of “The Mosaic Effect: How the Chinese Communist Party Started a Hybrid War in America’s Backyard,” says China is conducting “unrestricted warfare” on the West, yet Canada still hasn’t taken the first step of adequately defining which foreign interference threats the country faces.“Until the real question of what are the threats to Canadian national security is made clear, I do not see band-aid changes to the Canadian Criminal Code being much help,” he told The Epoch Times.
Mr. McGregor points out that, historically, it appears that no one goes to jail in Canada as part of foreign interference operations. This has been particularly the case with money laundering operations in places like British Columbia, where CCP operators have been involved in money laundering and drug operations for years, he says.
“Our legal system is not capable of prosecuting high-level money laundering cases,” he said.
“Foreign influence has been here all along. It’s not new. The corrupting of our institutions and compromising of our critical infrastructure has been happening and no agency or government has stopped it.”
What is needed, he says, is a whole-of-government approach to address the issue at its root. This includes national strategies to counter transnational organized crime, he says.
“We need legal reform and a whole-of-government and civil and corporate approach to identifying and addressing threats to Canada,” Mr. McGregor said.