Bill C-281

International Human Rights Act

An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law), the Broadcasting Act and the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act

This enactment amends the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act to impose certain requirements on the Minister of Foreign Affairs in relation to international human rights. It also amends the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law) to require the Minister of Foreign Affairs to respond to a report submitted by a parliamentary committee that recommends that sanctions be imposed under that Act against a foreign national.
In addition, this enactment amends the Broadcasting Act to prohibit the issue or renewal of a licence in relation to a broadcasting undertaking that is vulnerable to being significantly influenced by a foreign national or entity that has committed acts or omissions that theSenate or the House of Commons has recognized as genocide or that is subject to sanctions under the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law) or under the Special Economic Measures Act .
Finally, it amends the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act to prohibit a person from investing in an entity that has contravened certain provisions of the Act.

Copyright Act

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I previously mentioned, my second vote on Bill C-281 did not go through accordingly on the app. I did not inform you at the appropriate time, but I am seeking permission to apply my vote as a yea.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that my second vote on Bill C-281 did not go through correctly. Therefore, I seek the permission of the House to apply my vote as a yea for the previous vote.

International Human Rights Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at report stage of Bill C-281 under Private Members' Business.

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 2 and 3.

The House resumed from May 18 consideration of Bill C-281, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law), the Broadcasting Act and the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

It's a small vineyard. I'll put that on the record there. Anyone who owns a vineyard, including expert witnesses who have testified, would know that this is a loss leader and nothing more than that.

Thank you very much for that, Mr. Blaikie. I am not political royalty like him. That was very forward, but thank you very much for that interjection.

What I was saying is that—and this, actually, is a great sort of segue to it—those who earn more are paying less. When we look at a first parent's income of $120,000 and a second's expecting to make $50,000, it drops with one child from 41% to 33%, with two children from 51% to 35%, and with three children from 59% to 38%. That is the challenge. I would hope it would be the principle of all parties at this finance committee, and of all MPs, that those who earn more pay more, and that those who earn less pay less. I think that's only good tax policy and only makes sense. That's not the way that the marginal effective tax rate is working.

There are solutions other than simply reducing the benefit, as Mr. Blaikie brought up. There are other ways we can work at that. There is reducing the rate of clawback. There is increasing exemptions. There are a number of ways that this could be approached in particular so that those low-income earners are not penalized for going back to work. If you're only keeping 60¢ of every dollar, once you put in the other expenses that are, of course, associated with work—whether those be longer-term expenses like training or education, or shorter-term expenses like transportation, or even having to get a meal outside of your home and the expenses that are involved in that—it can quickly erode any type of benefit, meaning it doesn't pay to work in Canada.

There are multiple principles of tax policy that are violated. First, of course, is the fact that we are disincentivizing work, which tax policy should seek never to do. Second, those with more should pay more, and those with less should pay less. In this scenario, we have those who are earning more paying less and those who are earning less paying more. Like I said, I am more than willing to discuss the solutions to this, but the first step is saying that this is a substantial problem and, I believe, a root cause of a number of issues with the Canadian economy.

When we look forward and look at this $490-billion debacle of a budget.... I did hear some frustration from my Liberal colleagues that we're not getting this package out the door quickly enough. Well, we're also not saddling generations with additional debt and deficit more quickly. They said that the debt is now closing in on $1.3 trillion with additional spending of $60 billion on the way and with no plan to get back to a balanced budget.

With an increasing debt-to-GDP ratio, this does not make financial sense, so excuse Conservatives if, as opposition members, we're not hammering the accelerator to drive over the cliff. We want to have financial sustainability. We want to have a pay-as-you-go system, meaning that if there's a priority that demands more money, great. Let's find the savings somewhere else from a priority that doesn't need that money. If everything's a priority, nothing's a priority. That is the reality of management. There are tough decisions that have to be made—there's no doubt about that—but that's what the Liberals get paid for: to make those tough decisions. Instead, they just continue to saddle Canadians with more and more debt and deficit, which continue to grow. They just continue to look the other way. They did have, somewhat, a moment of reflection and thought in the fall economic statement when they, at least on paper, put forward a plan back to a balanced budget.

As to whether that would ever happen or not, clearly their track record would say otherwise. However, the challenge is that, in this recent budget, they completely departed from that. The balanced budget they forecast has completely evaporated. It's gone. We don't know where it went, but it's completely gone.

What changed in those six months?

From what I saw, the economic forecast was similar, in that most private sector economists were calling for a potential slowdown in the Canadian economy. That was eminently foreseeable. The expenditures were eminently forecastable—if that's a word. Now we've gone to $60 billion in additional spending. It's just absolutely wild how they can depart from that six months into their mandate. They can go from having a balanced budget in the forecast to having no balanced budget and to actually going up in their debt-to-GDP ratio. It is just wild how their forecasts can be that far off.

It makes one wonder what the next forecast will look like. This is the same government that told us that the budget will balance itself. I guess that type of economic dreaming—I'll put it charitably—has not changed. It is unfortunate that we can't get a reliable forecast going forward, as Canadian business depends on that. We need to know that when a government makes a forecast.... Certainly, there are unforseen events. No one would blame them for changing their forecast after COVID hit, but when the economy moves pretty much as predicted by most private sector economists.... They thought the Canadian economy would slow down, and the Canadian economy slowed down. They thought that some of the supply chain issues would resolve themselves, and they have.

For whatever reason, the debt and deficit just exploded in this projection. I can tell you for what reason. It's because the government decided to go on a $60-billion bonanza of spending of money allotted for more failed projects, such as the Infrastructure Bank. Last I heard, at least, it had not been able to build a single project.

Perhaps this isn't surprising given this Liberal government's record of failed economic growth, debt, deficits, high inflation, high interest, unaffordable housing—the list goes on—and also high food bank usage, where the testimony was truly startling with respect to the expenditures going forward there. The individuals, the experts, talked about food bank usage and the fact that one in 20 folks in Mississauga has to use a food bank. The food bank from the chair's riding used the word “terrifying” to describe the situation on the ground.

You would think that hearing some of these remarks might cause a bit of pause. Let's perhaps hear more. Let's investigate more. Let's do some consultation with other experts. Instead, this government's brazen response is to just double down: Let's get this through quicker and let's get higher deficits, higher debt, higher inflation, higher interest, lower economic growth, less innovation and less productivity. That's all that this government's eight years of a failed economic record has produced: economic failure after economic failure.

Millions of Canadians, unfortunately, are struggling with poverty. They are faced with extreme challenges. I believe we have a commitment to do everything we can to lift these individuals out of poverty. Putting in place such barriers as the incredibly high marginal effective tax rate is not helpful. It's not beneficial. It's actually extremely challenging for these individuals.

When you're earning $30,000 a year, the likelihood is that your paycheque is not going far enough. You may be spending as much as 100% of your after-tax income on housing, which leaves you zero disposable income and zero dollars for food. This is extremely challenging. The response to this is that, when you earn that extra dollar, and you get to that $30,000, you get that $32,000 or you get to that $35,000, going forward, the government takes half of that back.

That is just so troubling. We are disincentivizing work. We are actively corroding and eroding the rewards for work. We are punishing Canadians for doing the right thing. We're punishing Canadians who are working hard trying to make a few extra dollars, maybe to get by at the end of the month or maybe to make sure they have enough money to fill their grocery carts. Instead, we are taking more and more money from them.

As I said, most importantly, it's hurting the most vulnerable in our community, but it's also hurting our economy. We're dealing with a labour shortage and at the same time we're disincentivizing work. We need to get as many hands on deck as possible. We need to make work pay again. Quite frankly, the marginal effective tax rate, as it is right now, is a huge barrier to individuals working. We need to make sure that Canadians have the ability and are rewarded for the great work they do.

When we look at some of these issues, we can talk about what else experts could have come in here to talk about. They certainly could have talked about, if they looked through some of the issues that were up for discussion, the impact of the GST/HST rebate. In fact, some of the testimony was on what is euphemistically referred to as the “grocery rebate”, which is really just a doubling of the GST/HST rebate, for the record. They could have talked about how inadequate that is. When food costs are going up by $500, $700 or $1,000, depending on which metric you look at, the $250 won't even begin to pay the increasing fees of the groceries. Another issue they could have talked about is the air travel security issue and the costs that would be associated with that.

One issue that I would really like to hear about is money laundering and the funding of illicit acts. We have a real challenge in Canada, and we're a little bit behind the eight ball. In fact, I think we're a lot behind the eight ball. I think we have nearly all parties in agreement that we have to do better with respect to our money laundering legislation and our legislation prohibiting the financing of illicit acts and illegal flows of money. That area I would really like to hear about.

Another issue would be the Bank of Canada negative equity. “Negative equity” is a great euphemism. Negative equity means losing money, for all the viewers out there. The Bank of Canada for the first time in its history is losing money. I would have loved to hear witness testimony about the impact of that on the Canadian financial system—how sustainable that is and how much taxpayers are paying to bail out the Bank of Canada.

We would have loved to hear more details about the Canada innovation corporation act. Details are extremely scant on that, and it would have been great to hear witness testimony about it.

An area of particular interest to me is economic sanctions. I have a private member's bill, Bill C-281, that deals with economic sanctions, particularly the Magnitsky sanctions. The bill seeks to give Parliament the ability to ask for a report if the government is unwilling to sanction individuals or groups of individuals with respect to the Magnitsky act.

We saw a flurry of instances initially, when the act was passed, of the government utilizing the Magnitsky act. However, there have been very few since. My private member's bill would seek to enable a committee to have parliamentary oversight of the lack of sanctions, which I think would be incredibly interesting and transparent. I would have loved to hear Bill Browder or some of the other expert with respect to the Magnitsky sanctions in order to get a better idea of what's going on.

There's an interesting small part, in division 13, on the CRA data for CPP analysis. This is evidently just a sharing of information between departments, which requires legislative oversight. I would love to hear from some data experts on that, especially given the fact that the government has not done the best job of always stewarding the information. Of course, the CRA had a number of near breaches, I guess you would say, where information could have been exposed that caused outages and shortages with respect to their website. I think this is an area that merits substantial study.

All these areas ought to be clear, and it would be interesting to get some witness testimony on them.

I would love to hear more about the citizenship applications. This is obviously incredibly important. My office has been getting lots and lots of calls, emails and in-person visits about how the immigration system is failing Canadians and failing newcomers as they come to our great country. They increase our diversity, our work ethic and our intelligence. We're bringing incredibly intelligent hard-working people from all over the world. They come to join our country and make Canada their home, but unfortunately they're increasingly having a negative experience with the immigration system and finding it very cumbersome and difficult to manoeuver.

Interswitching is a really interesting topic. We did have one individual from Pulse Canada, I believe, who talked a bit about interswitching. From everything I have seen, this seems like a smart thing to do. In fact, under the Harper government interswitching was allowed, and then, unfortunately, the Trudeau government cancelled that project. Now I guess they're bringing it back as a pilot project. It would have been great to hear from both sides of the argument, both from railways and from the cargo shippers, as to the pluses and minuses.

Motions in Amendment

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak in support of Bill C-281 and in the process to recognize the work that was done and continues to be done on this important legislation by my colleague from Northumberland—Peterborough South.

It is also notable, I think, that we are debating the international human rights act today, on what is also Tamil Genocide Remembrance Day. I want to extend my thoughts, prayers and best wishes to the Tamil community here in Canada and around the world who are marking this day, who are remembering loved ones who were lost as part of those terrible events at the end of the Sri Lankan civil war. We think about and remember the continuing victims of persecution and oppression that Tamil people face in Sri Lanka.

It has been clear to me in the time that I have been working on international human rights as a parliamentarian that the Tamil community has been at the forefront of advocacy for human rights for their own community but also for other communities, supporting human rights causes that do not affect their own community but building those bonds of solidarity. On this particular occasion, I want to salute the work of the Tamil community on human rights. It is appropriate in that light that we are debating this human rights legislation today.

Today is also Vyshyvanka Day where we celebrate Ukrainian culture. We celebrate the embroidered shirts that are traditionally worn in Ukraine and many members of Parliament have donned those shirts today as well. We recognize the ongoing human rights abuses that Ukrainians face as well.

These are two examples of many around the world where peoples face injustice at the hands of governments and in other circumstances. This is why Conservatives are responding to the call from various diaspora communities, from Canadians of all backgrounds, to say that they want to see all governments do more to stand up for justice and human rights around the world. It is in that spirit, responding to these various calls, that my colleague has put forward Bill C-281, the international human rights act.

This bill contains a number of different provisions. It has been called a hodgepodge by some, it has been called an omnibus bill by others. I think it makes sense for members to use the opportunities they have to try to advance multiple, important human rights objectives at the same time. There is no reason to do less when we can do more.

There are different elements to this bill. This bill does amend different acts, all with the goal of advancing international human rights. If there is a common theme to many of these provisions, I would say that in many respects this could be called an international human rights accountability act. A unifying thread of the different parts of it is that it seeks to strengthen the role of Parliament in standing up for human rights and to make the government more accountable to elected parliamentarians in its considerations on human rights issues.

Members of Parliament, I think, are often much more responsive to concerns about human rights issues around the world. Rather than members of the executive, who may end up being a little bit more distant from what they are hearing from Canadians, members of Parliament are constantly drawn into an awareness of things that are happening around the world through the activism of our constituents, who may have, for various reasons, particular familiarity of those issues. It is through this, the people's House, that these human rights concerns have often been driven.

We have, as a House, sought to hold the government accountable and push the government to do more on human rights issues. I think this has been particularly the case with the current government but it may be a general feature. If I look at legislatures around the world, I can see many examples where legislatures go further in demanding action on human rights than executives. This is why in general, on human rights issues, if one believes in the importance of having a strong pro human rights foreign policy, strengthening the hand of Parliament relative to the executive is worthwhile.

This is not a bill that would just apply in the case of one government or one Parliament. In the long term, through various governments and various stripes that will no doubt exist in the future, it seeks to strengthen the hand of Parliament. That is why I think it is worth understanding this as an international human rights act but also as an international human rights accountability act. It requires the minister to report to Parliament about human rights activities. It requires the government to respond to recommendations with respect to Magnitsky sanctions that may come out of parliamentary committees. It takes these steps in requiring that greater responsiveness. It requires that, when Parliament recognizes a genocide, we would not have broadcasting licences going to entities responsible for that genocide. We know the role of incitement by authoritarian powers in justifying genocidal actions.

I do not think it makes any sense to allow those kinds of genocidal messages from violent, authoritarian powers around the world to be broadcast freely on Canadian airwaves. Of course, people can inevitably access this information online, but when we license Canadian broadcasting with Canadian airwaves, there is no reason to give that privilege to foreign authoritarian powers that are committing genocide.

One instance where we have seen Parliament be ahead of the executive is on the recognition of the Uyghur genocide in particular. We had a unanimous vote among parliamentarians, who cast their ballots on that issue, recognizing the Uyghur genocide; the government has still not acted. One of the debates we had at committee on this trigger mechanism for the CRTC was about whether a vote by Parliament should carry that much weight. My view is that when Parliament speaks and recognizes a genocide, it should not just be a symbolic action; it means something, and it should have a concrete impact in terms of the way the government and various other bodies respond.

I think it is important to address some of the criticisms. I get the impression that all members are actually voting in favour of this bill at this stage, which is a wonderful thing. Notwithstanding that general support, let us deal with a few of the critiques that came up.

There was some discussion about the reporting requirements, and at committee, we had a lot of discussion about the reporting requirements as they relate to prisoners of conscience. My view, and what I have heard from advocates, is that, generally speaking, when there is a prisoner of conscience, drawing more attention and awareness to their case is a good thing. Having their name on a list as being a person of particular concern whom governments are advocating for and aware of, advocates will generally tell us, is likely to have a positive impact on the outcome for that individual.

However, I also acknowledge that this may not be the case universally, so we discussed what the best way to provide alternative options and allow for redactions, in certain cases, would be. In the end, we resolved on redaction provisions that are extremely generous to the government. The government would have the power to make determinations on the basis of broad criteria to not include information about names, circumstances, etc. of prisoners of conscience who are advocated for.

The new provision says that “the Minister must make all reasonable efforts to consult with family members or representatives of the prisoners of conscience and may decide not to include certain information in the list if a person consulted by the Minister requests that the information not be included, or the Minister is satisfied that not including it would be in the best interests of the advancement of human rights or the personal safety of the prisoner.” As such, for those who are saying there may be some cases where publishing a name would not be good for the person, would not advance human rights or would put someone at risk, in any of those cases, the government has broad latitude to simply choose to do the redaction.

Our view is that requiring the government to go through this exercise of identifying the list, putting it together and centralizing it is a positive exercise, even if none of that information is released publicly. The government could theoretically say that it does not believe releasing any of this information is helpful for human rights, and it is therefore going to redact it all.

I hope that will not happen. I do not think that should happen, but the government has very broad latitude, so there is no reason at all for members to be concerned about the provisions around the publication of this information. The latitude, in terms of the minister choosing not to publish information, is extremely broad; they simply have to decide that they do not think it is in the interests of the advancement of human rights, and they can leave that information out.

One of the other issues that was raised was intent around possible inadvertent investments to do with cluster munitions. I will say respectfully that one of the challenges of this at committee is that we have received some mixed messages from some of the parties, in particular the government, around it. However, I think the provision reflects the discussions that were had, and the idea that someone would be prosecuted who did not intend actually just ignores so much about the principles of how our criminal laws work. For someone to be convicted of an offence, they have to have intent to commit the offence; the basic long-standing common-law principle of intent substantially addresses the concerns that members have raised in this respect.

This is a great bill. It would advance human rights in many important ways. It would be a game changer. It is not just about the current government; it is about decades into the future and making sure Canada can be a stronger voice on the world stage for human rights. I am proud to support Bill C-281.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, New Democrats are happy to support Bill C-281 at report stage and third reading. We would like to thank the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South for bringing this bill forward.

This bill makes four changes to different pieces of Canadian legislation to improve Canada's work on international human rights. First, it would require the minister to publish an annual report on human rights, as well as a list of prisoners of conscience for whom the government is actively working. It amends the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act to prohibit a person from investing in an entity that has contravened certain provisions of the act. It also amends the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, the Sergei Magnitsky law, to require the Minister of Foreign Affairs to respond to a report submitted by a parliamentary committee that recommends that sanctions be imposed under that act against a foreign national. Finally, it would prohibit the issue or renewal of broadcasting licences in the case of genocide, as recognized by the House or Senate, subject to Canadian sanctions.

We heard very clearly from witnesses at the committee stage that Canada's approach to international human rights could be much stronger. We want to thank those witnesses for their testimony and their guidance.

The NDP introduced four strong amendments to this bill, three of which were accepted by the committee. The first amendment we proposed changes to the list of names of prisoners of conscience for whose release the Government of Canada is actively working. We were concerned, as all parties were, that a fully public list of names may put certain individuals at risk of reprisal from authorities in the countries in which they are detained.

We also took note of the government's concerns over privacy and security of individuals. In the end, after significant conversation among the parties, the committee agreed to an NDP amendment, with subamendments from other parties. The resulting list still details the number of prisoners of conscience detained by each government or detaining authority, the circumstances of their detentions and the efforts the Government of Canada has made to visit them or attend their trials. It also includes a list of names. However, our amendment gives the minister the power to not include certain information on the list, if the government had concerns that it would not be in the best interests of the personal safety of the prisoner.

The minister is also required to consult with family members of representatives of the prisoners of conscience before they make such a decision. This would alleviate concerns the government initially had with publishing such a list.

I also note that the committee agreed to the NDP's proposal to ensure that the government's annual report include a description of the Government of Canada's communications with the families of prisoners of conscience, and its consultations with civil society on matters of human rights. Several civil society witnesses testified that the Liberal government was not doing enough consulting with human rights experts, and it is clear that the government needs to do a much better job at communicating on these issues. The NDP amendment also defined the term “prisoners of conscience” in the bill.

Our second amendment was to require the minister to develop and maintain a government-wide international human rights strategy. The Canadian government does not currently have an international human rights strategy. What we heard from expert witnesses at committee, including Human Rights Watch and human rights expert Alex Neve, was that Canada needed such a strategy by which the annual report, as required by this bill, could be measured.

While this amendment was deemed out of scope, the committee voted to overturn the decision of the Chair, with no opposition. All parties voted unanimously at committee stage to accept this NDP amendment and establish a government-wide international human rights strategy.

However, yesterday, the Liberals went back on their commitment to do this and appealed to the Speaker to reject the amendment. It is shocking that the Liberal government is now refusing to develop an international human rights strategy, when just last week the foreign affairs minister announced that Canada was seeking a seat at the UN Human Rights Council. The Liberals' decision goes against the will of the committee, goes against the advice of experts and, most importantly, is completely inconsistent with its stated goal to promote human rights. How can they say that they are promoting human rights when they are afraid to do the work?

This is highlighting the inconsistency and hypocrisy of the Liberal government, which has a lot of nice things to say but is just not willing to do the hard work. There is no good reason why the government should not proceed with this amendment and, I must say, we are extremely disheartened and disappointed by this decision.

Moving on to the rest of the bill, we are happy with the sections on the Magnitsky act and the Broadcasting Act, and we agree with much of what our colleagues from the other opposition parties have said today.

With my remaining time, I would like to discuss the NDP's amendments to the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act and, once again, the lack of leadership from the Liberal government when it comes to disarmament issues and cluster munitions.

We are pleased that the committee agreed to an NDP amendment that would include Canada's positive obligations under the cluster munitions convention in Canada's legislation. However, New Democrats also introduced an important amendment to fix section 11 of Canada's cluster munitions legislation. This was rejected by the government, despite its being the exact same amendment the Liberal Party introduced back in 2013.

In 2013, the NDP and the Liberals fought very hard to have section 11 of Canada's cluster munitions legislation fixed. The late Paul Dewar, the NDP's foreign affairs critic at the time, said, “when we sign international agreements, it's important that we live up to our signature. It's important that the legislation we adopt does not undermine the treaty we negotiated and signed on to and accepted.”

The NDP amendment we introduced was the exact same amendment that former Liberal MP Marc Garneau introduced when Parliament was first considering the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act. Mr. Garneau was a strong opponent of section 11 in Canada's legislation, as was Bob Rae, as were all Liberals at the time, including the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and others who currently hold seats in this chamber.

Our amendment used the same language we will find in Canada's legislation on landmines, which we can all agree sets an important precedent.

Cluster munitions are banned for a reason. The humanitarian impacts of cluster munitions are horrendous. We can all agree that under no circumstances should any Canadian ever use, order the use of or even transport cluster munitions. This amendment would have still allowed Canadians to participate in joint operations with non-party states, but it would have fixed the loophole to finally make Canada's legislation consistent with the convention and with the opinions of over 100 other countries, including many of our NATO allies, as we heard clearly from witnesses.

In 2013 and 2014, the Liberals argued strongly to fix section 11. Marc Garneau wrote an op-ed in The Globe and Mail, arguing that it needed to be fixed. Bob Rae gave strong speeches in the House of Commons against it and, at third reading, in 2014, the Liberals voted against the unamended bill, with the current Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister voting against.

The objections were over this exact clause. Ambassador Rae testified last month that he had not changed his position that this clause is wrong. Many Liberals, I think, feel the same. All expert witnesses who testified to this, including Earl Turcotte, who negotiated the treaty for Canada, want to see this fixed.

However, the Liberals did not support moving the NDP amendment forward. They refused to fix section 11 of the cluster munitions act, just as they are now also refusing to take bold steps on a human rights strategy. It is very disappointing to watch the government try to explain away its bad decisions on this bill. This was an opportunity for the Liberals to show real leadership on human rights, make real change, do the real work and move Canada forward. Instead, they have chosen to approach this issue with reluctance and excuses. This is not the human rights leadership we need.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Madam Speaker, you may have noticed that, as my hon. colleague from Mirabel will definitely appreciate, I am proudly wearing the traditional Ukrainian embroidered shirt known as the vyshyvanka today, on international Vyshyvanka Day. Of course, I am wearing it in support of the very courageous Ukrainian nation, which was invaded by Russia illegally and without justification. I am beginning my speech by talking about the vyshyvanka for a reason, as my remarks will show.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C‑281. I think the motivations underlying the bill are really very noble. However, as the saying goes, “do not bite off more than you can chew”.

This is a bill that has very different scopes and, as a result, it contains a number of flaws. We tried to fix these flaws through amendments at committee stage. Some of them were even introduced at report stage. In spite of these amendments, we still get the impression that this is like a patchwork quilt that—unlike those made by our valiant farm women in their farm women's groups—is not very pleasant to look at. Despite our efforts to try to correct these flaws, there are still a number of them in the bill. I want to say a few words about that.

First, this bill is intended to increase government transparency, as it will have to report to the House on international human rights issues. For starters, we had a problem with the definition of prisoner of conscience, because the notion of a prisoner of conscience can involve a value judgment. What is a prisoner of conscience?

We wrestled with a few definitions, one of which was proposed to us by Alex Neve, the former head of Amnesty International Canada. I think we came up with an arrangement that, on the whole, enabled us to correct the bill's vague initial concept of a prisoner of conscience. The focus is more on people who are victims of human rights violations under international law. We were able to rectify that little issue in the original wording of the bill.

There was also a proposed amendment that was ruled out of order, but the committee nevertheless adopted it. We overruled the chair. What a surprise it was yesterday to see our colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, intervene to ask the chair to rule the amendment out of order, which the chair actually did.

I will explain what was so surprising about the request by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

This is the amendment in question: “The Minister must develop and maintain a government-wide international human rights strategy.”

The deputy House leader rose in the House to ask that the amendment be withdrawn, even though it simply requires the minister to develop and maintain a government-wide international human rights strategy. This same government, which is currently making a bid for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council, asked for the following to be removed from the bill: “The Minister must develop and maintain a government-wide international human rights strategy.” I could not make this stuff up. The government claims it wants to become the best human rights advocate in the world, but at the first opportunity, it eliminates the minister's obligation to develop and maintain a government-wide international human rights strategy.

I have to say that it is very astonishing. If not for the intervention from the government's parliamentary secretary, perhaps the Chair would have had the indulgence to allow this amendment. However, it was ruled out of order because of the magnificent intervention from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

Another element of this bill concerns the fact that new sanctions will be imposed on corrupt foreign officials, in particular by requiring the Minister of Foreign Affairs to respond within 40 days to any committee report recommending sanctions against a foreign national under the Magnitsky Law. I have nothing particular to say about this provision.

We can see that this bill is trying to cover a lot of bases, because another provision prohibits the issue, amendment or renewal of a licence in relation to a foreign propaganda broadcasting undertaking when the foreign country is recognized by the House of Commons or the Senate as having committed genocide or being subject to sanctions under either the Magnitsky Law or the Special Economic Measures Act.

As far as the Magnitsky act is concerned, although the government got it passed, it has never enforced it in any way so far. I must say that this amendment to the act bothers the government a bit because it means that when a House or Senate committee or when the House or Senate identifies a state as having committed genocide, it would be binding on the government.

Members will recall that the House nearly unanimously acknowledged the Uyghur genocide. The government is ignoring the democratic will of members elected by the people of Canada and Quebec; it is doing what it wants. This provision would make it so that from now on, the government would have to consider the opinions of the House and its committees or the Senate and its committees. I must say that caused much gnashing of teeth across the way.

The last amendment, and this is another attempt to cover all the bases, is about prohibiting any investment in an entity that violates the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act.

To be clear, Canada signed the international Convention on Cluster Munitions. Once again, as I was saying, one cannot be against motherhood and apple pie. In theory, therefore, everyone should agree with this provision, except that it has indirect consequences that are potentially harmful.

For example, the Government of Canada plans to purchase a number of F‑35 aircraft from Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin makes cluster munitions, though. Is the Canadian government breaking its own law by doing business with a company that manufactures cluster munitions?

We therefore came up with an amendment to correct that little legislative oversight as well as we were able. There is another one too, because the bill would also crack down on direct or indirect investments in companies that manufacture cluster munitions. We tried to introduce that amendment, but we were unable to do so in committee.

The Chair ruled against the amendment I had proposed on the grounds that it should have been moved in committee, and that is true. However, we were unable to move it in committee because there was no consensus. That is why we moved it at report stage.

Here is the problem. Any one of us, any of my fellow MPs, may hold investment funds that make us unwilling investors in companies that manufacture cluster munitions. In theory, we could all be held responsible for violating this provision that says that we cannot directly or indirectly invest in companies that manufacture cluster munitions.

We tried to correct that, but were unable to do so, so if the bill were to be passed as it is currently worded, anyone here in the House could, along with our fellow citizens, find themselves to be in violation of the act.

Despite the flaws I mentioned at the outset and discussed throughout my speech, we will have to vote in favour of this bill because—I am sorry to have to say this again—we cannot be against motherhood and apple pie. Still, we have to recognize that this bill has issues.

Despite people's efforts during the committee's study and even during the debate at report stage, I believe we will have to conclude that, unfortunately, the bill's provisions are still flawed. We may eventually have to introduce another bill to fix it all.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased and honoured to speak to Bill C‑281.

I would like to congratulate the member across the aisle, the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South, for introducing the bill. Bill C-281, the international human rights act, is now at third reading.

Canada is steadfast in its commitment to uphold human rights, both at home and abroad. We consistently look for opportunities to bolster commitments, add to our robust foreign policy tool kit and better address human rights crises wherever they are. We protect those people who are in vulnerable and marginalized situations and, ultimately, advance respect for human rights globally.

I am pleased to have the chance to discuss Bill C-281, which seeks to amend four instruments. The first is the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, which establishes the federal department known as Global Affairs Canada. The second is the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, also known as the Sergei Magnitsky Law, which allows the government to impose sanctions against individuals responsible for gross human rights violations. The third is the Broadcasting Act, which gives the CRTC the authority to regulate broadcasting in Canada. The fourth is the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, which implements Canada's commitments under the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

The purpose of the bill is to further promote, protect and advance human rights internationally, a purpose the government is also strongly committed to.

During debate at second reading, many of my colleagues from all parties, including the sponsor of the bill, noted and identified that the initial draft of the bill contained several aspects of important concern. It was in the spirit of this multipartisan support for human rights that the bill was agreed to and referred to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. The hope and the goal were to see that, through expert testimony from witnesses representing the implicated departments as well as civil society, along with the diligent work of committee members, key improvements could and would be made.

As a member of the foreign affairs committee, I was entitled to attend several meetings over the span of more than a month, and we worked hard on this task. I would like to thank all colleagues on the committee, including the sponsor of the bill, witnesses who testified and department officials who gave their time and studied the bill, for the contribution and efforts that they all made.

As a result of the proposed amendments at committee, members of all political affiliations have strengthened the bill. The amendments address many of the issues raised in the original drafting. While these changes have made substantive improvements, I would like to expand upon some remaining concerns as well as highlight some areas that could use further refinements.

The first concerns the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act. On this particular item, Canada strongly supports the vital work of human rights defenders to advance respect for human rights, as well as strengthening the rule of law. Bill C-281 would introduce new reporting requirements for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It would also require an annual human rights report that outlines the Government of Canada's efforts to uphold its commitments to human rights globally, which would include support for human rights, particularly a list detailing activities undertaken by Canadian officials to secure the release of persons identified as prisoners of conscience.

While this would be a new initiative for the minister and for Global Affairs Canada, it would also be the first time, the first moment, that such a reporting requirement would be mandated under the act. It would also align well with the government's established priorities. Such a report would help demonstrate Canada's robust engagement on human rights and would create space for greater transparency. It would also create accountability for our actions, particularly Canada's advocacy on behalf of prisoners of conscience, who can range from those with Canadian citizenship to those with no connection to Canada but with causes that are crucial to Canada's interest.

That said, the personal safety, security and privacy of all persons must be paramount. The government must ensure that, at all times, it is able to continue to act in the best interests of Canadians. Publicizing a list within the report that includes the names of prisoners of conscience, as well as the circumstances of their detention and the government's efforts to engage with them and on their behalf, could have serious consequences. These are people whose cases the government is actively working on. The consequences could include undue harm to the individual detained, and none of us want to see that.

To ensure that the value of “do no harm” is respected, any information in the report that could endanger the personal safety and security of a person should not be made public. Numerous witnesses have testified to exactly this point during committee proceedings. Committee members have also opined on this exact item, saying that there is need for discretion in this regard. While the proposed exemptions provide considerable reassurance that the minister will be able to respect the wishes of these individuals and act in their best interests, the requirement to produce a list of prisoners of conscience remains a concern, particularly for Canada's ability to pursue effective, quiet diplomacy and coordination with other countries on particular files and cases. Careful implementation will be key.

Additionally, Canada must ensure that it can continue with its efforts to more broadly advance human rights internationally. We must ensure that Canadians abroad can count on consular support and diplomatic advocacy, if needed, through established bilateral relations with countries at all corners of the globe. An amendment introduced by the committee also added a legislative requirement for the minister to produce a government-wide international human rights strategy. While the idea has merit, and the government is committed to working with all parties in the House on advancing human rights around the globe, we support the ruling made earlier that such a proposal went beyond the scope of the bill as agreed to at second reading, especially given the substantial financial and human resources that would be involved to develop and maintain such an effort across the whole of government.

Next, this bill seeks to amend the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, or the Sergei Magnitsky Law. Sanctions are an important tool used by the Government of Canada to address human rights violations and must be used when appropriate. In this respect, amendments to this bill, supported by all parties, were appreciated. They included ensuring that timelines for responses by ministers to reports by committees, as proposed under the act, remain consistent with established practices specified in the Standing Orders or rules of the Senate. The amendments also included changes to avoid inadvertently giving individuals or entities a heads-up that such consequences as sanctions may be coming their way.

With respect to the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, Canada is a proud signatory and fully compliant with the Convention on Cluster Munitions, underscoring our continued commitment to the eradication of these deadly weapons. While we are supportive of including language that would seek to explicitly prohibit investments in cluster munitions, we remain concerned about the current wording of the bill. We continue to believe the bill would be stronger if it incorporated an element of intent. This would ensure that innocent investors, such as pension beneficiaries or mutual funds holders, would not be held criminally liable for the actions of professional investment managers who knowingly finance the production of these terrible and vile weapons. While all parties acknowledged this challenge, unfortunately, the committee was unable to revise the language to address this concern in a way that preserved Canada's steadfast stance against the financing of cluster munitions. This is an area that needs to be addressed as the bill continues through the legislative process.

Finally, the Broadcasting Act is also touched upon in this bill. There are some important vehicles for the transmission of ideas. Bill C-281 recognizes the important role of prohibiting the issuance or renewal of broadcasting licences to broadcasters.

I am sure others will be able to contribute to this debate. I would like to thank members and all those who have contributed to this discussion. I hope that we can make this legislation improve upon the good intention behind this bill.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-281, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 19 on page 2 with the following:

“droits de la personne;”

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-281, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 15 on page 3 with the following:

“rules of the Senate or the Standing Orders of the House of Commons for responses to”

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-281, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing, in the French version, lines 1 to 3 on page 4 with the following:

“(1.‍1) Aucune licence ne peut être attribuée ou renouvelée dans le cadre de la présente partie à l’égard d’une entreprise de radiodiffusion, y compris une entreprise qui distribue de la programmation étrangère, qui,”

Madam Speaker, it is my absolute privilege and honour today to rise for Bill C-281, the international human rights act. This is a bill that many individuals have contributed to, including the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, as well as many other members. We had a fantastic discussion at committee, and I was very proud to be a member of Parliament when we were having productive discussions.

For those who are unaware of the legislation, I want to go through it and outline some of its key parts.

This private member's bill seeks to do four things. First of all, it seeks to raise awareness about Canadians and other people being held across the world not because of any type of crime they have committed, but because of the beliefs they hold or who they are as individuals.

We have seen this with the two Michaels, who were held by the regime in Beijing. We have also seen many prisoners of conscience held for many different reasons. Of course, in the past and with the Soviet Union and others, many times individuals were held because they had beliefs that were different from the regime's beliefs. We have seen individuals incarcerated by governments across this world simply because of the person they choose to love.

We are calling for the government to go forward and publicize what it is doing to help prisoners of conscience around the world. Specifically, we are asking for the government and the foreign affairs department to share the following information: the number of prisoners of conscience detained by each government or detaining authority and the names of prisoners of conscience. I will talk briefly about the names of prisoners of conscience.

We had quite a bit of debate at committee, and I think we landed in a really good spot, a spot where everyone could be happy. There were concerns expressed from across the political spectrum that perhaps publicizing the names of individuals who are being held for their beliefs may cause them additional issues and may even put them in peril.

What we have done with this legislation is given the government the broad latitude to redact names where it believes the individuals' security may be impacted by the publication of their names. We are also requesting that the government consult with the families of these individuals. This is so the families who have members being held as prisoners of conscience across the world who want a name published, want to see the force of the Canadian government and want to put the name on a list can point to it and say their brave brother, their brave sister or their brave father is standing up and speaking truth to power in an authoritarian regime. Others who feel this may in some way imperil these individuals or reduce their ability to eventually be released can choose not to do so.

By publishing this list, the idea is that we bring awareness to the cause of prisoners of conscience, so they do not just get swept underneath the rug in the name of diplomacy or in the name of economics. As Canada's traditional role is to be steadfast in standing for human rights both at home and abroad, by having this provision we get to find out, through this mechanism, what Canada is doing to protect these prisoners of conscience, both Canadians and other people around the world.

Where it makes sense, we will publish their names so that family members can point to them and say that the Government of Canada believes their brother, mother, sister or dad is being held as a prisoner of conscience. We will have an ability as parliamentarians to hold the government to account.

If the government is doing enough, we can say thanks for helping those folks. For those it is not doing enough for, we will also have the ability to ask questions, provoke and advocate for them, as prisoners of conscience are often some of the bravest people in the world. They are people who have stood up for women's rights. They are people who have stood up for freedom, for liberty and for LGBTQ rights. These individuals are heroes and should be protected.

The next provision is with respect to the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, the Sergei Magnitsky act. Many members of caucus and many individuals, including Bill Browder, and of course Sergei Magnitsky himself, were instrumental in creating these sanctions that seek to hold those who perpetrate the worst of human rights crimes accountable.

Knowing individuals cannot torture or incarcerate individuals simply for their political beliefs or for fighting for the cause of freedom and then hop on a private jet to attend cocktail parties around the world, make these sanctions so critical to raising the standard of human rights in Canada, and more importantly, across the world.

Canada has not only an ability but also an obligation to stand for human rights as a country that has been blessed with constitutional democracy, liberty and freedom. We have an obligation to the world to fight for human rights around the world. The Sergei Magnitsky act is incredibly important in doing that. Unfortunately, we have seen inactivity on this file.

Unfortunately, the government has had very few instances of triggering the Magnitsky act, especially in recent years. Let us be clear and let us be frank. The is no shortage of individuals who could be held accountable. We have seen the atrocities in Ukraine. We have seen the atrocities done by the regime in Beijing. We have seen what these individuals are doing. We have seen what is happening to the Uyghur people. We have seen what has happened to the Tibetan people.

We need to make sure the individuals who commit these most horrendous of crimes, these most vile of human rights offences, are held to account. Bill C-281 would give Parliament the ability of oversight. It would now have the ability, through the committee structure, to ask why an individual is not being sanctioned, and the government would be compelled to answer why.

In many countries it goes even further, where legislative bodies are actually given the ability to trigger it themselves, but this is a great first step along the way to encourage, advocate for and make sure as much as possible that the government is doing its job.

I am so proud to help and advance the cause of Sergei Magnitsky and others, who have done an amazing job of fighting against the human rights violations we have seen in the Russian regime and elsewhere.

The next section I will talk about briefly is the Broadcasting Act. Unfortunately, we have seen foreign regimes able to broadcast their propaganda over Canadian airwaves. The most egregious time was with Russia Today using it to broadcast hate against the Ukrainian people. Fortunately, its licence was revoked, but there lacked a process for the CRTC to do it. Bill C-281 would put a process in place so that, if genocidal regimes were using our airwaves to broadcast propaganda, we would have an ability to withdraw their licence.

Finally, there is the prohibition of cluster munitions. This bill would put in place the ability to restrict Canadian companies to finance the construction of cluster munitions. Cluster munitions are not weapons of war. They are weapons of terror that often kill civilians, often children. Cluster munitions are really just bombs of bombs, and there are numerous stories of children going out in the fields, playing with these and unfortunately dying.

These four provisions are at least a small step in making our world a bit of better place in fighting for human rights and restoring Canada's place in the world as a hero and worker for human rights.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

There are four motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-281.

Motion No. 4 will not be selected by the Chair as it could have been presented in committee.

All remaining motions have been examined, and the Chair is satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at the report stage.

Motions Nos. 1 to 3 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 3 to the House.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-281, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law), the Broadcasting Act and the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Amendment to Bill C-281 at Committee Stage—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised yesterday, May 17, by the parliamentary secretary to the government House Leader regarding an amendment adopted by the Standing Committee of Foreign Affairs and International Development during the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-281, an act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law), the Broadcasting Act and the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act.

The parliamentary secretary explained that the committee adopted an amendment to clause 2 of the bill that creates a new obligation on the minister to develop and maintain a government-wide international human rights strategy. According to the parliamentary secretary, this amendment proposes a new concept that exceeds the scope of the bill as adopted at second reading. The parliamentary secretary argued that, for this reason, the amendment in question should be struck from the bill as reported by the committee.

When this amendment was proposed at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, the committee chair ruled the amendment inadmissible on the grounds that it was beyond the scope of the bill. The decision was challenged and overturned. The committee then debated the amendment and adopted it.

When considering legislation, the House and its committees are guided by specific procedural rules that have been long established. In relation to the scope of a bill, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states the following on page 770:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

Bill C-281 does amend several acts, and it does create certain new obligations on the minister in relation to human rights. However, after a close reading of the bill, the new responsibilities for the minister are limited to specific areas, including communicating with families of prisoners of conscience and producing formal responses to House and Senate committees.

After careful consideration, it is the opinion of the Chair that the amendment creates a new obligation requiring the designated minister to develop and maintain a government-wide international human rights strategy. The Chair of the committee correctly concluded that the amendment is beyond the scope of the bill, as it introduced a new concept not envisioned in the bill when it was adopted by the House at second reading.

When a committee considers a bill at clause-by-clause, the committee chair must ensure that the proceedings on the bill conform to the procedural rules governing the consideration of amendments to bills. This includes ensuring that the committee’s review of the bill falls within the scope and principle as established by the House at second reading.

When a committee fails to adhere to the will of the House as it pertains to bills, it oversteps its authority, as delegated to the committee by the House. Speaker Milliken said it well when, on May 11, 2010, at page 2650 of the Debates, he explained:

As has been frequently noted, the Speaker’s involvement in committee matters is limited except in cases where a committee has exceeded its authority. The adoption of amendments that are beyond the scope of a bill is such a case....

While some members may be of the opinion that a different bill, perhaps broader in scope, ought to have been introduced, I must base my decision on the bill that actually was introduced and approved by the House at second reading.

As such, the Chair rules the amendment adopted by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development null and void and orders that it no longer form part of the bill as reported by the committee. The Chair also orders a reprint of the bill at the earliest opportunity for use by the House in its consideration of subsequent stages of the bill. However, given that the House is scheduled to consider Bill C-281 at report stage later this day, so as not to disrupt the business currently before the House, report stage will proceed based on the version of the bill as reported back from committee, with the understanding that when the bill will be reprinted, the text of the inadmissible amendment in question, at clause 2, will not be included.

I thank members for their attention.

Amendment to Bill C-281 at Committee Stage

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to an amendment made in committee on Bill C-281, standing in the name of the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South. Without commenting on the merits of the amendment in question, I submit that it proposes a new concept that exceeds the scope of the bill as adopted at second reading.

Specifically, the amendment to clause 2 of the bill would add a new obligation to the minister to “develop and maintain a government-wide international human rights strategy.” When the amendment was proposed, the chair of the committee ruled it as inadmissible. However, a majority of the members on the committee voted to overturn the ruling of the chair and then proceeded to adopt the amendment, which is now found in the bill as reprinted by the House on May 4.

I submit that the ruling of the chair of the foreign affairs committee was correct and that our procedures must be respected. As a result, the proper course of action to address this matter is to order a reprint of the bill without the offending amendment.

Foreign Affairs and International Development

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 16th report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, in relation to Bill C-281, an act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, the Broadcasting Act and the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.