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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Clause 2 of Bill C-281 amends the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act to add an obligation to publish a report that lists the names and circumstances of prisoners of conscience detained worldwide for whose release the Government of Canada is actively working.

The amendment seeks to expand that list to all prisoners who are detained or experiencing other treatments in contravention of international human rights standards. Also, the amendment provides more accountability to the families of the detained and to civil society. These are new concepts not envisioned in the bill when it was originally adopted by the House at second reading.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states 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.”

In the opinion of the chair, and for the above-stated reason, the amendment is a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

Go ahead, Ms. McPherson.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 58 of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room, as well as remotely by using the Zoom application.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of the members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike and please mute yourselves when you are not speaking.

Interpretation for those on Zoom is at the bottom of your screen, and you have a choice of either floor, English or French. Those in the room can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, November 16, 2022, the committee resumes 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, the Broadcasting Act and the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act.

It is now my pleasure to welcome officials who will be supporting this clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-281.

From the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, we have Ms. Marie-Josée Langlois, the director general, strategic policy branch; Mr. Jeffrey Marder, the executive director of human rights and indigenous affairs; and Ms. Ashlyn Milligan, the acting executive director for non-proliferation, disarmament and space.

We have, from the Department of Canadian Heritage, Ms. Amy Awad, senior director, marketplace and legislative policy.

I'd like to provide members of the committee with some instructions and a few comments on how the committee will proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-281.

As the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there are amendments to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further member wishes to intervene, the amendment will be voted on.

Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill or in the package each member has received from the clerk.

Members should note that amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee.

I will go slowly to allow all members to follow the proceedings properly. Amendments have been given an alphanumeric number in the top right corner to indicate which party submitted them. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once an amendment is moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended.

When a subamendment is moved to an amendment, it is voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title and the bill itself, and if amendments are adopted, an order to reprint the bill may be required so that the House has a proper copy for use at report stage.

Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. That report contains only the text of any adopted amendments, as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

At this point, allow me to thank the officials for their attendance and guidance during this clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-281.

Each of you has received the package. It's fairly copious. It's about 30 pages. I would recommend everyone follow these.

Going to the agenda, we will go through clause-by-clause study. Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, which is the short title, will be postponed.

(On clause 2)

Would anyone like to speak to clause 2?

Go ahead, Mr. Oliphant.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you. That concludes this session.

Allow me to thank Mr. Turcotte, who is here in person, as well as Mr. Browder and Ms. Deif. We're very grateful for your time and testimony. Our apologies that this particular session was truncated because we had some votes in the House.

On that note, let me thank you again. We're looking forward to perhaps having you back at committee very soon. Thank you.

For the members, I just wanted to say that on Tuesday, April 18, which is the first session when we get back, we are having clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-281.

I was wondering whether it's the will of the committee to adjourn.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Browder, you talked about the importance of countries harmonizing the implementation of the Magnitsky Act. Through Bill C-281, the committee could publicly discuss the application of a sanction against someone and make a recommendation to the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development.

Do you think this could hinder harmonization with other countries or, on the contrary, can it be done at the same time that the government is working on harmonization and the committee is working on selecting individuals?

[Farida Deif]

Certainly we would agree that this amendment to section 11 is necessary. This is something we have been calling on Canada to do since the very beginning. This remains a key concern for us. I think we're pleased that one loophole, which is the issue around investment in cluster munitions, is going to be addressed by the current amendment in Bill C-281, but at the same time, there are other loopholes, which include section 11, that should be addressed.

[Farida Deif, Canada Director, Human Rights Watch Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members of Parliament, for inviting me to appear before this committee.

My name is Farida Deif. I'm the Canada director at Human Rights Watch. Human Rights Watch, as you know, is an independent international human rights organization that monitors human rights abuses in nearly 100 countries, including here in Canada.

I am delighted to have this opportunity to share thoughts on Bill C-281. In the nearly seven years that I've been in this role, I've engaged extensively with Global Affairs Canada colleagues, both in Ottawa and at Canadian missions around the world. I've also worked on a range of policy files with relevant staff in the offices of five different foreign ministers appointed during this period.

While I've heard more times than I can count that a certain human rights crisis or the case of a prisoner detained in violation of international law was “top of mind”, as civil society we're often not privy to much tangible or concrete information in terms of the specific actions taken by the government on their behalf. I certainly welcome the proposed amendment to the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act to include reporting requirements relating to international human rights. With enough concrete detail, these annual reports could be an incredibly useful tool for Canadian civil society and the human rights sector writ large.

These reports could also create a yardstick to measure the implementation of GAC's own “Voices at Risk: Canada's Guidelines on Supporting Human Rights Defenders”. As noted in the guidelines, Canadian government officials should request to attend trials and visit detainees in prison even when the detaining authority is unlikely to approve the request, in order to demonstrate that there is “continued international interest in the case.”

These guidelines further note that attendance by Canadian officials at trials or hearings—“a clear and visible expression of Canada's concern”—can be helpful by “allowing for detailed tracking of legal proceedings, observing whether due process is respected, and ensuring up-to-date information on cases of particular interest”. Seeking to visit a detainee imprisoned in violation of international human rights law can also be a meaningful way of showing support to the individual, assessing their treatment in detention and registering condemnation with the detaining authority.

This is why the current amendment on human rights reporting should include detailed information not only on those prisoners for whom the government is actively advocating for their release but also on any efforts to attend trials and hearings, the number of requests for prison visits made by Canadian missions and authorities and the response of detaining authorities. Of course, in some cases, it would be important to anonymize the names of prisoners to mitigate security risks and possible retaliation.

I'd like to turn now to the bill's proposed amendments to the cluster munitions act. Human Rights Watch has played a leading role in documenting the harm to civilians caused by cluster munitions, including most recently in the Ukraine conflict. Our research and analysis has informed the negotiation and implementation of the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

In 2012, my colleagues in the arms division testified before the Senate foreign affairs and international trade committee on the then Bill S-10, the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act. We also submitted written testimony to the House of Commons standing committee highlighting several key provisions that would benefit from revision or clarification, including the need to explicitly prohibit investment in cluster munitions.

As you know, the preamble of the Convention on Cluster Munitions articulates its goal to eliminate cluster munitions and to bring an end to the suffering they cause. The current bill would advance that objective by reducing funding for the production of cluster munitions. It could also help Canada meet its obligations under article 9 to “take all appropriate legal, administrative and other measures to implement this Convention”. Article 1(1)(c) of the convention makes it unlawful for state parties to assist anyone with any activity prohibited by the convention, and investment in cluster munition production is a form of assistance. The funding of entities that develop and produce cluster munitions and their components allows them and encourages them to keep doing so.

The amendment proposed in Bill C-281 thus moves Canada one step closer to ensuring that it implements the convention in accordance with the letter and spirit of the law. In the process, it also provides much-needed clarity to financial and other institutions relating to the prohibition on assistance with production of cluster munitions. The amendment is also in line with measures taken by Canada's allies.

Since 2007, 11 states parties to the convention have enacted legislation that explicitly prohibits investment in these weapons. Nearly 40 states have stated that they regard investments in cluster munitions production as a form of assistance prohibited by the convention. It is also important to note that like-minded governments have worked to close any remaining indirect investment loopholes. For example, government pension funds in Australia, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway and Sweden have either fully or partially withdrawn investments, or banned investments, in cluster munitions producers.

We strongly support these efforts to explicitly prohibit investment in the production of cluster munitions. We also support any efforts, as mentioned by others, to close remaining loopholes in the existing law that will undercut Canada's ability to fulfill the humanitarian potential of the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

Thank you for your attention to these urgent matters and your efforts to advance Canada's leadership on these critical fronts.

[Earl Turcotte, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen, I'll restrict my comments to the only area of Bill C-281 on which I am competent to speak, and that is regarding cluster munitions.

First I'd like to congratulate Mr. Lawrence and the parliamentary colleagues who worked with him to develop these proposed amendments. Certainly with respect to cluster munitions, what these amendments would do is to make explicit in Canada's law what some would maintain is implicit in the prohibition on assistance in the development or use or in any other way advancing of the use of cluster munitions. I will, as you'll see very soon, be recommending that amendments go further than this provision, however.

Very quickly, for those who may not be that familiar with cluster munitions, they were first developed in World War II. They have been used most extensively in the carpet bombing campaigns in southeast Asia and the Vietnam war, and used more recently in Afghanistan, Yemen and Syria and, as I'm sure most of you know, very extensively in Ukraine, mostly by Russia, although there have been reports in a few instances of use by Ukrainian troops.

These are the polar opposite of a precision weapon. They have been described as conventional weapons of mass destruction. They are by design area-wide weapons. When a cluster bomb is dropped, either at ground level or from the air, think of it as a large, hollow casing within which there are typically hundreds of submunitions, extremely deadly submunitions, far deadlier, actually, than land mines on average. One cluster bomb can cover an area roughly the size of three football fields. Russia today is using many of them, multiple-launch rocket systems that can launch 12 rocket rounds in very quick succession. Essentially they are weapons that saturate a given area. They make no distinction, of course, between combatants and non-combatants, especially when deliberately used in civilian areas, as appears to be the case in Ukraine.

According to the International Committee of the Red Cross and civil society experts, roughly 97% of all known victims worldwide have been civilians, 66% of whom have been children, who are often drawn to the bright colours of the submunitions. Many maintain that they've been designed that way quite intentionally.

It was no mistake, then, that the international community in the mid-2000s decided that cluster munitions had to be banned as most of the world had already banned anti-personnel land mines, an initiative led by Canada in the late 1990s, and had also banned chemical and biological weapons, and blinding laser weapons among others.

I was a public servant for 29 years, and I had the honour of leading the Canadian delegation throughout the 15-month negotiations of the Convention on Cluster Munitions. Within that negotiation, the most contentious issue related to interoperability with non-party states; that is to say, our capacity, in our case as a member of NATO, to continue to work effectively alongside countries like the United States that chose not to participate in negotiations. At least 85% of the countries were absolutely opposed to any provision for interoperability in the convention, for fear that this would provide a legal loophole that would, in some respects, contribute to the continued use of cluster munitions.

I, as head of delegation, and 21 NATO colleague countries and a few non-NATO countries, insisted that we had to have within the convention itself provision for interoperability, while making it very clear at the same time that this in no way would allow our troops to advance the use of cluster munitions. In fact, we went further and said we would put right in the article itself the fact that we were legally obligated to make best efforts to discourage the use of cluster munitions by any actor under any circumstances.

That is exactly the way, in my view and the view of 110 other state parties, this article within the convention should be interpreted.

No sooner did we return to Canada in 2008 than colleagues at the Department of National Defence insisted on including in Canada's act exceptions that would apply during combined operations with non-party states that, in my view and in the view of many others, are absolutely contrary to the convention itself. Those exceptions would allow for a Canadian commander of a multinational force to order the use of cluster munitions by non-party states, for Canada to transport them on Canadian carriers and, in many other substantive ways, to aid and abet in the use of cluster munitions.

I would urge this committee to please consider amending section 11 of Canada's act to absolutely remove all these exceptions, which are not consistent with the commitment Canada, as a state party, has made.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Welcome back, everyone. I call the meeting back to order.

We will now resume our consideration of Bill C-281, as was agreed to by the members. This panel we will hear from until 1:15.

We have three great panellists with us here today. First, we have Mr. Earl Turcotte, who is appearing as an individual. Second, we have Mr. William Browder, who is the founder, chief executive officer and head of the Global Magnitsky Justice Campaign. He is here on behalf of Hermitage Capital Management. Last but certainly not least, we have Ms. Farida Deif, who's here from Human Rights Watch Canada.

We're very much looking forward to your testimony.

Please only speak when you're recognized by the chair.

We will go to Mr. Turcotte first for his opening remarks of five minutes.

[Sherap Therchin]

It would certainly be helpful, and I agree on the amendment of a human rights strategy in Bill C-281.

I'm not very familiar with the technicalities, but I would certainly defer to Alex Neve, whom I have known for many years as a very well-respected human rights defender and supporter of all the victims of Chinese oppression, whether it's Tibetans, Uyghurs or Hong Kongers.

In this case, I would agree with what Alex Neve has recommended.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to both of the witnesses for being here today and sharing your testimony with us. I think it's so important for us to hear this. I also sit on the international human rights subcommittee, so I have heard some testimony regarding the residential schools in Tibet. Thank you for being here.

I'm going to ask the same questions. I'm going to ask two questions and then I'll give you some time to respond, if that's all right.

With regard to Bill C-281, the New Democratic Party is bringing forward a number of different amendments. One amendment we'd like to see is with regard to a human rights strategy. Canada does not have a human rights strategy that we could use as a baseline for the annual report. We're pushing for having that baseline, so that the government could show what they've achieved using that as the baseline.

I'd like some information from you on whether or not you would agree that a human rights strategy would be useful in this legislation.

The other piece I'd like to ask you about very quickly.... In this legislation, we have a definition of a “prisoner of conscience”. Now, Alex Neve, who was the secretary general of Amnesty International, joined us at our last meeting. He suggested that, instead of it being a “prisoner of conscience”, we should have a definition that refers to individuals who are detained or experiencing other treatment in contravention of international human rights standards.

Would you agree that it would be useful to have that within this legislation? Perhaps you can expand on that.

Perhaps I'll start with you, Mr. Therchin.

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

Thank you very much.

Chair, I'll be splitting my time with Mr. Genuis.

I'll be asking a couple of questions of you, Mr. Therchin. Thank you very much for your testimony. It was very moving and powerful. I can certainly say for myself, and I'm sure for many in the room, that we stand with Tibet.

With respect to the first two parts of Bill C-281, the first area is prisoners of conscience. Just in general, maybe not getting into the specifics of the legislation, do you believe that by shining more light on some of the atrocities that are happening and the prisoners of conscience being held by the regime in Beijing could be helpful to prisoners of conscience who are human rights defenders from Tibet?

[Katherine Leung, Policy Adviser, Hong Kong Watch]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is Katherine Leung, and I am the policy adviser for Hong Kong Watch in Canada.

Hong Kong Watch supports the heart of Bill C-281, which would make it easier for parliamentarians to recommend foreign officials who should be included on a sanctions list, including those guilty of the ongoing human rights crackdown in Hong Kong. As committee members will no doubt be aware, many of these Hong Kong officials have links to Canada, including owning property, having family members with foreign passports and having been educated here. The bill would also rightly increase the government's powers to ban state propaganda outfits operating in Canada, like CGTN, which spread disinformation and seek to interfere in our public debates. Such a ban would bring Canada in line with like-minded partners like the U.K., which banned CGTN in February 2021.

This specific amendment to the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act is a welcome provision. As I am sure members are aware, Hong Kong has over 1,000 political prisoners at this time, and this number is only growing. We note that there are several political prisoners who previously held Canadian citizenship or who have family links to Canada. The Hong Kong authorities have jailed so many political prisoners in the last several years that overcrowding in prisons is a growing problem. The authorities are running out of space to put the activists, journalists and trade unionists they have incarcerated.

Hong Kong has one of the largest populations of political prisoners in the world, with over 10,000 politically related arrests since 2019. We urge Global Affairs to consider better tools to track and identify those prisoners of conscience who have links to Canada. We believe that this new provision will allow NGOs, like Hong Kong Watch, to be better equipped to advocate for the release of people whose only crime is to fight for the betterment of their country.

With regard to the provision for the Sergei Magnitsky Law, we should be proud to be one of the first countries in the world to adopt a Magnitsky sanctions regime, which allows us to target and hold to account individual human rights violators. It is, therefore, sad to note that not a single entity or individual from China has currently been sanctioned by Canada under the Magnitsky law. As members will be aware, Canada has sanctioned just four individuals and one entity in China for human rights violations in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region under the Special Economic Measures Act. We have no shortage of reasons to sanction Chinese and Hong Kong officials. In fact, parliamentarians have repeatedly, in the form of letters and committee reports, called on the government to do so.

Sanctions are a tool for Canada to hold human rights violators accountable. Tools only work when they are used. From what we have seen, there is an inconsistency in the government's approach. It has introduced a Magnitsky sanctions regime that it claims is world leading, yet it refuses to use it, instead relying on SEMA. The sole purpose of the Magnitsky law is to protect human rights on a global scale, whereas SEMA exists as an economic sanctions scheme and is not intended to be used solely against human rights violations.

The proposal of this bill to create a mechanism by which the Minister of Foreign Affairs is required to respond to recommendations made by a parliamentary committee is a welcome step forward. This will not only serve as a way to incentivize the government to utilize this tool for its intended purpose but will also provide transparency on the reasons behind such decisions. After all, sanctions do not sit in a vacuum away from wider policy-making. They are political in nature and have a significant impact on the bilateral relations between countries. The decision and reasoning to not sanction an individual human rights violator is as important as the rationale for doing so. This provision of the bill will help inform the public, civil society groups and NGOs on the wider thinking when it comes to the government's sanctions policy and its commitments to uphold human rights.

Turning to the amendment to the Broadcasting Act, I believe Canadians would find it reasonable that regimes that are committing genocide or ongoing human rights violations should not be given a platform on Canadian airwaves. The distribution of state propaganda from countries that grossly violate human rights is not in the public interest. For example, CGTN is under the control of the central propaganda department of the Chinese Communist Party. It is a tool of propaganda, disinformation and the violation of human rights. In 2019, CGTN aired a forced-confession video of Hong Kong activist Simon Cheng that was recorded under duress and which he was coerced into filming as a condition for his release. CGTN has also broadcast blatant disinformation, denying the Uyghur genocide, mischaracterizing the Hong Kong pro-democracy movement as riots rather than peaceful protests, and claiming that COVID-19 originated in the U.S. in contradiction to scientific evidence.

An important point to raise is this: Who is on the receiving end of this propaganda? In Canada, it is largely Chinese immigrant communities that are consuming this. To allow CGTN to continue operating on public, state-owned Canadian airwaves is to allow Beijing's propaganda to misinform, propagandize and have direct influence on Chinese-speaking Canadians.

In closing, I will say that we are supportive of Bill C-281 as a way to increase the government's accountability and transparency in Canada's role in upholding human rights internationally.

Thank you.

[Sherap Therchin, Executive Director, Canada Tibet Committee]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, honourable members of the committee, for inviting me to testify before this esteemed committee.

I would like to use this opportunity to speak of the arbitrary detention, torture and killings in Tibet. I would like to start by sharing the stories of some Tibetans who were detained, tortured and killed in recent years.

In July 2022, a 56-year-old Tibetan monk, Jigme Gyatso, died after a prolonged illness: multiple organ failure caused by the torture and inhumane treatment he endured in the prison. He was detained several times over a period of 15 years. The first time he was detained was in 2006, when he returned to Tibet after attending the teachings of His Holiness the Dalai Lama in India. He was detained for the second time in 2008, around the time when there were protests in Tibet during the 2008 Beijing Olympics. When he was detained for the second time, he was waiting near his monastery to repair his shoes.

Although he had not taken part in the 2008 Beijing Olympics protest, he was still detained based on his past history of being detained. After his release, Jigme created a video testimony providing a first-hand account of the torture he endured. In the video, Jigme reveals what he had told the Chinese police forces before his release. I quote: “If you kill me, then that will be the end of it. But if am able to leave and get the opportunity, I will speak about the torture I endured. I will bear witness as a truthful voice to the sufferings of my friends and report these events to the media.”

Likewise, in February 2021, a Tibetan tour guide named Kunchok Jinpa died in a hospital three months after being transferred from prison without the knowledge of his family. He was serving a 21-year prison sentence for sharing information with the outside world through the foreign media about a local environmental protest. The local sources said that he had a brain hemorrhage and body paralysis.

In the same year, a 19-year-old Tibetan monk, Tenzin Nyima, died after being released from prison in a comatose state. Tenzin was arrested, along with four other monks, for their peaceful demonstration near the local police authorities while demanding Tibetan independence. He was released in 2020, but was rearrested the same year for allegedly sharing the news of his arrest with Tibetans in exile.

In 2020, a 36-year-old mother, Lhamo, died, again shortly after being transferred to hospital from police custody. She was detained on the charge of sending money to her family in exile in India. Her body was immediately cremated, preventing any further investigation of her case.

Mr. Chair, there are many other Tibetan prisoners who died in prison or shortly after being released or transferred from prison. They were not terrorists and they were not separatists, nor were they dangerous to the state's security, as China accused them of being. They were mothers. They were entrepreneurs. They were tour guides. They were monks. They were singers who had dreams about leading a dignified life as Tibetans in their own lands.

Mr. Chair, what binds this story together is how they didn't have access to lawyers, how they didn't have access to their families while being detained, how none of them had an opportunity for a fair trial, how they were tortured and discriminated against just because they were Tibetans, and how none of their cases so far have been investigated and none of the perpetrators held accountable.

As indicated in the video testimony of Jigme Gyatso, the 56-year-old monk, they expect those of us in exile, those of us living in a free and democratic country like Canada, to raise the challenges and to talk about issues they faced.

They risk their lives in passing information to the outside world so that we would know about the reality of the situation in Tibet, so that we would know about the over one million Tibetan nomads being forcefully relocated, so that we would know about the over one million Tibetan children forced into boarding schools for political indoctrination, so that we would know about the destruction of Tibetan monasteries such as Larung Gar and Yarchen Gar, so that we would know about evictions of Tibetan monks and nuns, and so that those of us in exile, those of us in the free world, would know about the cultural genocide that is taking place in Tibet through the destruction of their language, religion and cultural identity.

Mr. Chair, the situation in Tibet under President Xi Jinping is dire and urgent. I request that this committee consider using tools that we have at our disposal, such as the Sergei Magnitsky Law and this Bill C‑281 to challenge and counter such blatant human rights violations. We cannot and must not let the perpetrators continue any more such crimes with impunity.

Thank you.

[Daniel Turp, Emeritus Professor, Faculty of Law, Université de Montréal, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Members of Parliament, Madam Clerk, I would like to begin by greeting the members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development and expressing my pleasure at appearing again before a committee of the House of Commons, where I actually had the privilege of serving as the member of Parliament for Beauharnois-Salaberry during the 36th Parliament, from 1997 to 2000.

I am here in response to the invitation to appear, sent to me by your clerk, on Bill C-281. As you said, Mr. Chair, I will unfortunately have to leave you quickly because I have a commitment that I want to honour, like any member, or former member, who wants to keep their word.

In the brief time I have, in those five minutes, I will comment on one clause of the bill, the one that proposes that the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act be amended.

I also want to say that I agree with the other three clauses of Bill C-281 that propose to amend the three other acts mentioned in the bill. So it is clause 2 of the bill that I am particularly interested in, the one that seeks to amend section 10 of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act by adding subsection 10(4).

You will recall that this section provides that, in exercising his or her powers, duties and functions under the act in respect of the conduct of the external affairs of Canada, the minister is to publish, at least once in every calendar year: a report that outlines the measures taken to advance human rights internationally as part of Canada’s foreign policy; and a list that sets out the names and circumstances of the prisoners of conscience detained worldwide on whose release the Government of Canada is actively working.

First of all, I fully agree with the proposal to create a requirement for the Minister of Foreign Affairs to publish a report on the advancement of human rights around the world. In fact, Canada would not be the first country to publish such a report. The United States of America has been doing so for almost 50 years. Its latest report was released just a few days ago, on March 20. It is a report broken down by country, which includes comments on Canada and the situation of human rights in Canada. Such reports are also published by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and by a number of non-governmental organizations, most notably Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

In my view, the publication of such a report would provide an additional source of information on the state of human rights around the world, within the international community and across states, from a Canadian perspective, and would contribute to a better understanding of the state of human rights around the world.

On the subject of prisoners of conscience and the proposed list to be published, I would first suggest that you define the concept of “prisoners of conscience”. Amnesty International's definition might serve as inspiration:

Amnesty International considers a Prisoner of Conscience (POC) to be any person imprisoned or otherwise physically restricted (like house arrest), solely because of his/her political, religious or other conscientiously held beliefs, their ethnic origin, sex, color, language, national or social origin, economic status, birth, sexual orientation or other status, and who has not used violence or advocated violence or hatred.

I have a second and final point to make.

With respect to the list, I agree with the idea expressed during the review of Bill C-281, in particular the idea expressed by MP Christine Normandin, that exceptions should be allowed and names omitted from the list, and that mechanisms should be developed to do so because of the possible security breach for prisoners that could result from such publication.

Members of Parliament, Mr. Chair, these are a few observations. I hope they will be useful.

I wish you good deliberations. I regret that I won't be able to be with you for a longer period of time. I hope that Bill C-281 will be passed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Welcome to meeting number 57 of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room as well as remotely using Zoom.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of the members and the witnesses. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike and please mute yourselves when you are not speaking. Interpretation for those on Zoom is at the bottom of your screens, and you have a choice of the floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

In accordance with our routine motion, I am informing the committee that all witnesses have completed the required initial connection tests in advance of our meeting.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, November 16, 2022, the committee resumes 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, the Broadcasting Act and the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act.

Because we had a vote, we've moved the panels around a bit. For the first panel, we will hear from witnesses until 12:30, and our second panel will go from 12:30 until 1:15.

Before introducing our panellists, I should point out that we were just advised by Professor Turp that he will be leaving us at 12:15, so to the extent that you have questions of him, please try to make sure that it happens as soon as possible.

It's my great pleasure to welcome to the committee, as an individual, Professor Daniel Turp, faculty of law, Université de Montréal. Also, from the Canada Tibet Committee, we have Sherap Therchin, who is the executive director, and he is here in person. Last but certainly not least, we're also hearing from Hong Kong Watch, and we have the pleasure of having with us Ms. Katherine Leung, who is a policy adviser.

Each of you will be provided five minutes for your opening remarks, after which we will allow the members to ask you questions.

When you're getting very close to the five-minute mark or when members are questioning you and the time is out, I will put this up. I'd appreciate it if each one of the witnesses tried to wrap up their comments as soon as possible after.

Given the schedule of our witnesses, we will start with Professor Turp.

Professor Turp, you have five minutes for your opening remarks.