Foreign
Influence Transparency and Accountability Act Is
Neither
Transparent Nor Accountable
Act Gives Seal of Approval to Government
by Police Powers
Bill C-70, the Countering Foreign Interference Act includes separate legislation called The Foreign Influence Transparency and Accountability Act. As the title of the legislation indicates, it claims to be aimed at providing transparency and accountability. The "transparency" that is aimed for, according to Bill C-70, is "to ensure that persons who, under an arrangement, carry out activities in relation to a political or governmental process in Canada do so in a transparent manner; to deter foreign principals from making efforts to influence political or governmental processes in Canada in a non-transparent manner; to raise public awareness of efforts by foreign principals to influence political or governmental processes in Canada; and to strengthen national security."
The legislation is an example of how terms such as "transparency" and "accountability" are used to cover up and twist what is going on. Its only connection with transparency and accountability is the total absence of these qualities on the part of the legislators and the legislation itself.
Appearing before the House Committee reviewing Bill C-70, Sébastien Aubertin-Giguère, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, National and Cybersecurity, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, addressed the significance and importance of the registry.
An Associate Deputy Minister "is a deputy minister in waiting, often assigned to a specific project or initiative pending appointment to lead a department." Assistant deputy ministers are "operational positions, usually carrying responsibility for particular functions or budgets within a department." So, go figure what an Associate Assistant Deputy Minister is! But whatever he is, Aubertin-Giguère told the House Committee Reviewing Bill C-70:
"As you know, Canada and allies face numerous geopolitical challenges that threaten to destabilize democratic nations and the global economy. Every day, the strength of Canada's national security and public safety is being tested. Notably, threats from China, Russia and Iran continue to threaten our national security and social cohesion. What has captured the attention of many Canadians is the insidious threat of foreign interference. This remains a critical threat to our national security."
We consider that we come under the category of "many Canadians" but what has captured our attention is the insidious use of talk about a threat of foreign interference and repetition of the claim that this remains a critical threat to our national security. Whenever Canadians seek evidence of this threat, they come up empty. In fact, they can give many government policies which threaten Canada's national security, such as its membership in NATO and NORAD, for example, and its foreign policy which interferes in the internal affairs of sovereign nations, destabilizing them, causing regime change, and other such things. But foreign policy is considered a matter of ministerial prerogative and not open for discussion. None of this is discussed. There is a veil of secrecy on such discussion, in the name of national security of course. And now, more and more, laws are passed to give the appearance that the police powers of the governments and courts, whose allegiance is to a head of state who is a foreign monarch, are part of rule of law. To give it all a triple seal of approval, a plethora of commissioners with credentials said to be impeccable are appointed and their role is to say that whatever is done in secret is A-OK. It is the egregious Security Certificate process all over again.
Aubertin-Giguère is pretty clever. Having named the countries that are said to pose the threat to our national security, he went on to suggest that "the registry was designed to be country-agnostic, and it's a tool to protect, not persecute, communities of diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds in Canada." First he names China, Russia and Iran and then tells us the registry "is designed to be country-agnostic!" Do these people even listen to themselves? It seems not.
In this fashion, not a single legislator nor the civil servants the government has assigned to defend its legislation will be accountable for their refusal to address the concerns raised by many organizations about the impact of these new laws on freedom of conscience, speech and association. They refuse to be accountable for the liberties being accorded to spy agencies to interfere in elections and other political affairs based on prejudiced and anti-democratic stigmatization of Canadians who for myriad reasons do not fall in line with official state policy, particularly on foreign relations. This includes those who oppose Canada's membership in NATO and its support for U.S. wars and aggression and the use of force to resolve conflicts. It includes those who would prefer a government that would build friendly relations with China and Russia, rather than castigating them as "hostile states" to create a war mentality. Nor will the legislators be held to account for the potential targeting, disruption and destruction of international organizations which promote cooperation in various scientific, cultural and political endeavors among the world's peoples, including associations between universities, cultural cooperation and the like.
The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, to which Canada is a signatory, declares among other things that one of its purposes is to "contribute to the development of friendly relations among nations, irrespective of their differing constitutional and social systems." It outlines the legitimate functions of diplomatic offices and their personnel, including "furthering the development of commercial, economic, cultural and scientific relations between the sending State and the receiving State and otherwise promoting friendly relations between them." Included in Consular functions is "ascertaining by all lawful means the commercial, economic, cultural and scientific life of the receiving State, reporting thereon to the Government of the sending State and giving information to persons interested." The Convention also stipulates that diplomatic staff must respect the laws of the receiving country and that "it is the duty of all persons enjoying such [diplomatic] privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State. They also have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of that State."
Foreign affairs are matters dealt with through prerogative powers. A shocking twist is how matters which pertain to foreign affairs, foreign policy and state-to-state relations are being used to enact domestic laws designed to weed out foreign agents in the name of defending democratic institutions.
The Foreign Influence Transparency and Accountability Act sets up a Registry where it is not at all clear who has to register. The laws says the registry will apply to "arrangements" relating to all "political or governmental processes" at all levels of government in the country, including those of "a council, government or other entity that is authorized to act on behalf of an Indigenous group, community or people that holds rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, or any other entity that represents the interests of First Nations, the Inuit or the Métis."
Excluded from this requirement are foreign nationals holding diplomatic status and employees of "foreign principals acting openly in the employee's official capacity." It will also not apply to "an arrangement to which His Majesty in right of Canada is a party" and "any arrangement that is included in a class of arrangements specified in the regulations."
Any person who enters into an arrangement must register within 14 days and provide information which will be specified in regulations to be established by the Governor-in-Council and then provide updated information.
The bill is distinguished by the many regulatory powers accorded to the Governor-in-Council including the "class of persons" and the "class of arrangements" that will or will not be required to register. Also left to regulatory powers are "the individuals or classes of individuals who may exercise or perform any of the Commissioner's powers, duties or functions in relation to the scheme, including the designation of such individuals or classes of individuals by the Commissioner."
Other areas left to prerogative powers include setting out the definition of "public office holder," specifying what information and updates must be provided, and authorizing government institutions to disclose information protected by the Privacy Act to the Commissioner, "for purposes specified in the regulations."
Where failure to register or provide information is alleged or if an entity is accused of obstructing the work of the Commissioner, punishment is a fine of up to $5 million or imprisonment of up to five years, or both if convicted on indictment. A summary conviction is punishable with a $200,000 fine, up to two years in prison, or both. Administrative penalties and compliance agreements that will be imposed for not registering and what factors will be considered as to whether to use administrative measures rather than charges will also be determined through Governor-in-Council.
This article was published in
Volume 54
Number 5 - June 2024
Article Link:
https://cpcml.ca/Tmlm2024/Articles/M540053.HTM
Website: www.cpcml.ca Email: editor@cpcml.ca