Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you on Bill C-70. I am especially grateful for this opportunity because it addresses a number of issues that I and many others have advocated on for some time.

Bill C-70 is a relatively complex and, in some cases, quite technical piece of legislation. However, its overarching thrust goes a considerable distance towards dealing with the threat of foreign interference—again, a threat that has been with us for some time. In particular, the creation of offences relating to foreign interference and the creation of the foreign influence transparency commissioner and of the registry he or she will be required to maintain will provide tools that Canada is lacking. These measures will not make foreign interference go away, but they will help deal with the threat.

As well, the provisions amending the CSIS Act, permitting the service to disclose information much more broadly than is currently the case, will assist government institutions, as well as the private sector and civil society, in understanding and dealing with threats to our national security. In this respect, these amendments will help deal not only with foreign interference but also with other threats to national security.

I have two last comments. The first deals with concerns that I have seen reported in the media to the effect that some provisions in the bill risk charter compliance issues. I am not a charter lawyer. Indeed, I am a lapsed lawyer. However, I do not see this risk in the actual words of the bill. Is there a possibility that its implementation might increase the risk? Possibly.

Having said this, it seems to me that this is frequently the case with any law that creates offences. However, I do not believe—and I hope you will agree with me—that such concerns should prevent you from approving Bill C-70. I think that there are four reasons for this. First is the certificate of the Minister of Justice, which the chair just referenced. I also think that Parliament is entitled to believe in the good-faith implementation of the law by ministers and officials. If there is a real problem, there is always recourse to the courts. Finally, if there are really serious problems, you can change the law.

My last comment relates to what I understand is the view of some: that Bill C-70 should not be dealt with on a fast track. I would suggest to the contrary that the expeditious review and passage of Bill C-70 is in the national interest. I can see no possibility that our geopolitical adversaries will in any way in the foreseeable future modify their behaviour so as to lessen threats to our national security. These threats are real and affect virtually every part of our country: the private sector, civil society, individuals and governments at all levels. NSICOP, NSIRA and the Hogue inquiry all clearly support the view that the threats you are considering are real and require action. To not deal with Bill C-70 in the days and weeks ahead and—if you'll forgive me for saying so—in an environment increasingly affected by the possibility of an election could mean the demise of Bill C-70.

My last thought is that, even if Bill C-70 were to receive royal assent next week, implementation will take some time, and I hope you will take this into account as you consider time frames relating to the bill.

Thank you for your attention, and in due course, I'd be more than happy to try to answer your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.