Foreign Affairs Committee on March 28th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

You didn't have a question? Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chong.

We now go to Dr. Fry.

You have four minutes.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony.

As was said before, Mr. Neve makes some compelling points. I'm not going to question him, but I am very interested in asking Ms. Harth a question.

We know that many people have opposed certain bills that have come through the House by the Minister of Canadian Heritage with regard to some of the foreign multinationals that have actually brought about certain information, including organizations like Netflix, etc. My concern is this: How do you balance in good legislation freedom of the press with the ability to curb disinformation and propaganda, as you say?

I would like to ask that question, and I'd like to give you the time to answer it, because I think that is at the heart of the question: How do you keep freedom of the press, and how do you do this given that the CRTC is a quasi-judicial body and cannot be made to do anything by the Government of Canada? Being a quasi-judicial body, it's in fact considered interference when the government tries to tell the CRTC exactly what to do.

How do we square that circle on freedom of the press and disinformation and propaganda on the other hand? It's a need, and I agree with the need to do it, but how do we do it? Do you have any ideas? Are there any clear ways of doing this?

[Laura Harth]

Thank you very much for this question.

For us, it's been very important, and I think from our complaints you will see that we have specifically targeted, in a way, although targeted is not the word.... We have called out CCTV-4 and CGTN for the airing of these forced televised confessions. When it comes to other complaints—for example, the one on the Hong Kong protests as aired by CGTN and the object of complaints in the U.K. and sanctions by the regulator Ofcom—those go more into the bias and disinformation area of things.

We are dealing with the same question. We understand that this is very difficult. However, in the case of CGTN and CCTV-4, we are very clearly dealing with what are blatant human rights violations.

Very briefly, if you'll allow me, I will recall the CRTC's statements in 2006 when, after a lengthy review, they made the decision to allow the addition of CCTV-4 to the digital broadcast list. They said:

...the Commission has found several instances of the service broadcasting content that in its view constitutes abusive comment, these date back to 1999 and 2001, and there is no evidence of such instances aired by CCTV-4 since that time....

In light of all of the above, the Commission approves the request...[and] considers it unnecessary to impose specific conditions on its distribution in addition to those usually applicable to such services on such lists.

Now, when it added CGTN, the commission noted that these packages should obey “the laws of every country in which its services are broadcast” and “will comply with the provisions of the relevant codes that govern Canadian broadcasts”. However, the commission “will be prepared to exercise” its right to remove the service from the list “if it finds that abusive comment has been aired on the service while it is distributed in Canada.”

Those were the statements by the CRTC at the time, and they're the kinds of statements we look to when it comes to this airing of forced televised confessions, which are clearly a violation that has been taking place, including on Canadian airwaves.

It's not a complete response as to how we deal with disinformation—and propaganda, which is another question still—but this is really about upholding broadcasting regulations and making sure that no human rights violations are actually being aired through Canadian airwaves.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

How do you—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Dr. Fry. I'm afraid you're out of time.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Now we go to Mr. Bergeron.

You have four minutes, sir.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for their extremely helpful and interesting clarifications with respect to Bill C‑281

Mr. Neve, you and I had the opportunity, in a previous life, to work on a number of matters together, including the one involving Mr. William Sampson. In that particular case, it was desirable to do everything on the quiet, meaning not to say anything publicly so that negotiations could continue.

I had a concern, and I told the sponsor of Bill C‑281, and representatives of Global Affairs Canada, about it last week. Thank you for the excellent suggestions you have made with respect to amendments, which appear to me to address some of my concerns, particularly the first few items in the bill.

I'd like to return to a statement you made in The Globe and Mail on January 14, concerning the impact of the Magnitsky Law. You wrote that the Canadian government “continues to be reticent about imposing sanctions against culpable Chinese government officials through what is commonly known as the Magnitsky Act".

However, I would like to point out that the government imposed sanctions on for Chinese individuals and a Chinese entity under the Special Economic Measures Act.

What do you think can be achieved by imposing sanctions under the Magnitsky Law that could not be achieved by imposing sanctions under the Special Economic Measures Act?

[Alex Neve]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bergeron.

That's a good reminder of the work on William Sampson's case more than 20 years ago. I think it does remind us that there are times when publicity is not necessarily in the strategic interests of the prisoner concerned.

With respect to the Magnitsky act and I guess China, although I think your question is broader than that, the Magnitsky act obviously offers a fuller and much more targeted set of sanctions with a focus on the individuals who are responsible. The very specific tying of the sanction to concerns about international human rights violations I think is very important and very useful.

I think there is both actual impact and symbolic impact with sanctions. I think that's always the case with sanctions, but that is certainly so with the Magnitsky act provisions. Certainly, it may well have direct implications for the person concerned. We note, though, that in many instances that's probably not the case. They don't have any assets, travel plans or other measures that will be directly implicated, but it has sent a very strong message globally that Canada is watching and that Canada is concerned about that individual's conduct with respect to international human rights and is prepared to back that up with something beyond rhetoric and actually impose some consequences.

Of course, as I said in my opening remarks, the one thing that is still so woefully lacking when it comes to the international human rights system is enforcement and accountability. Those provisions take us in that direction, and they take us in that direction at a level that really can hit hard, and that is individual accountability and responsibility.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

What do you think is the reason for the reticence that you mentioned in your article?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

This will have to be very brief, please.

[Alex Neve]

With respect to China, it's broader than just around the Magnitsky act, and it's nothing limited to this government. It's something we've been concerned about, whoever is in power. There is a reluctance to hit hard when it comes to China. China has clout and influence, which makes governments nervous about saying hard-hitting things about human rights, let alone actually imposing sanctions on individuals. I think we're starting to see that change, and that's vitally important.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you.

Next we'll go to Madam McPherson.

You have four minutes.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Neve, thank you very much for being here. I think everyone in this room recognizes you as one of the pre-eminent voices for human rights defence in this country. We deeply appreciate that you're sharing your expertise with us at this point.

I want to raise first that I think it's so important that we continually remember that, at the end of the day, when we talk about prisoners, these are family members. These are fathers. These are children. These are individuals. Yesterday I had a heartbreaking meeting with some Turkish individuals who had been arbitrarily detained. I was meeting as well with Enes Kanter Freedom, who has been an incredible ally for these people.

I know that you have told me about Dong Guangping. I want you to speak a bit about what this legislation will mean and if we can improve it to the point that this will actually help those human rights defenders and those who have been arbitrarily detained.

[Alex Neve]

Dong Guangping in two minutes.... Dong Guangping is an incredible Chinese human rights defender who has been imprisoned three times in China because of his advocacy, a lot of which has been related to Tiananmen Square.

He and his wife and daughter escaped from China in 2015. He almost made it to Canada at the time. He was accepted for refugee resettlement, but where they were in hiding, the Thai government unfortunately handed him over to Chinese officials just days before he was to fly to Canada. He was sent back to China and imprisoned again. He was then released from that third period of imprisonment. He was determined to once again find his way to freedom, especially given that his wife and daughter were now here in Canada. Obviously, he wanted to be with them.

His first incredible attempt was to actually swim to freedom. He tried to swim off the coast of China to reach an offshore island controlled by Taiwan. He almost drowned. He didn't make it. He was rescued by a fishing boat and taken back to China. He tried another time, that time going overland to Vietnam, where he remained in hiding for two and half years—enduring COVID, for instance—concerned about not coming to the attention of Vietnamese officials, while the Canadian government carefully tried to see what they could do to encourage Vietnam to let him leave the country and come to Canada.

Unfortunately, on August 24 of last year, seven months ago, while it looked like his departure for Canada was drawing closer, he was arrested by Vietnamese police. There has been no word of him since.

To connect it up with Bill C-281, I think the family—and certainly advocates—have very much welcomed Canada's involvement in trying to advocate on his behalf. In particular, Prime Minister Trudeau and Minister Joly raised it at high levels back in the fall when they were in Southeast Asia for a number of summits, but beyond that, it's been very difficult for the family to have any clarity as to what is or is not being done.

There are assurances that it's being taken up, but there's never any reporting as to what that looks like and no indication as to what the results are or the outcome is. I think it really leaves the family very much in the dark. It's one of the reasons why I emphasize that the bill could be significantly strengthened if it paid attention to that side of this. How do we ensure that family members and advocates get more reliable information?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you.

Given the concerns of the families of those detained and the concerns of civil society regarding the transparency of the government, would you agree that we need to have included in an annual report a description of the efforts the minister has made to improve consistency and transparency in human rights advocacy and to improve accountability to families of those detained and to civil society?

[Alex Neve]

I think that absolutely a description of those kinds of initiatives would be really important. I would take one step back and say that it would be even stronger if it were on the basis of some sort of strategy that was developed. I think that right now, even when when there are good intentions and good efforts made with respect to prisoner advocacy, it's often ad hoc. I think all concerned would benefit from a clearer strategy that brings some consistency, fundamental principles and some details around how family members are going to be engaged and when and in what circumstances to go public with cases, etc.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I couldn't agree more.

Thank you, Mr. Neve.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you.

We now go to the second round of questions. For this round, each member will receive three minutes.

We start off with Mr. Genuis for three minutes.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I will start with a comment on the issue of freedom of the press, and then, Ms. Harth, I'd welcome your response to that.

I think freedom of the press is very important. There are a few points, though, in the context of this bill. One is that freedom of the press doesn't oblige that everybody gets a public broadcasting licence. There are certain rules around public broadcasting licences. You can still get RT in Canada. You can get it online. I'm not promoting it. I don't think you should watch it, but it is available online, and CGTN would still be available online if the broadcast licence were removed.

Another way of responding to this is to say that they're not the press. I mean, you can get a lot of information on conservative.ca. That's a website for a political party, but it's not a media outlet, and neither are organizations that exist specifically to propagate the views of foreign political parties.

Also, then, that's just to say that, when these so-called media organizations that are not media organizations are directly involved in violating human rights themselves, they clearly would lose the good name of alleged association with the press. Just in general, the idea of freedom of speech and freedom of expression do not include the rights of foreign authoritarian governments to propagate their messages in our domestic context, especially with the privilege of a broadcasting licence.

I think there are some very clear distinctions between what real journalists do and what these human rights-abusing foreign propaganda outlets are involved in. There's no reason for them to have the benefit of having a broadcasting licence.

Ms. Harth, I'd welcome your reaction to those reflections, please.

[Laura Harth]

Thank you.

Very briefly, allow me to quote a statement by the chairperson and chief executive officer of the CRTC from March of last year, when Russia Today and Russia Today France were scrapped. Mr. Ian Scott said the following:

Freedom of speech and a range of perspectives are a necessary part of our democracy. However, it is a privilege and not a right to be broadcast in Canada. Foreign channels can be removed from the authorized list should their programming not be consistent with the standards to which Canadian services are held, or their continued distribution no longer serves the public interest, as was the case for [Russia Today] and [Russia Today] France.

I think that statement pretty much echoes yours, Mr. Genuis.

Thank you.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Briefly, in the time I have left, on CGTN, it also broadcasts misinformation involving Russia's invasion of Ukraine. It's not just repression of people inside of China. They're also promoting the Russian misinformation narrative. Is that correct?

[Laura Harth]

Yes, exactly. We have seen Chinese media outlets being used as an outlet for Russia's disinformation and propaganda.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Now we go to Mr. Oliphant.

You have three minutes.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will go to Mr. Neve.

Thank you for being here and advising us on the legislation. I think it's very important, which is why I want to give you a little more time on it.

I'm thinking back many years to cases we have worked on together, where there have been times when it has been appropriate for government and civil society to speak loudly and cases where it has been important for civil society to speak loudly and government to be quiet. There have also been cases where it was important for civil society and government to both be quiet to save lives.

I very much appreciate your remarks regarding the publicizing of such names. I had not thought previously about what happens when someone's name is not on the list, which could perhaps signal the wrong thing. I also very much appreciate your concern about “prisoners of conscience” as a not well-defined term legally, and I very much appreciate your remarks regarding how we could do that.

I want to give you the rest of my time for you to talk a little more about the positives and negatives of publishing such a list and about the naming of what we're doing.