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.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to both of our witnesses for being here today. It's very interesting to me.

Alex, you talked a bit about having an international human rights strategy. We tried to bring that forward with an amendment during Bill C-281 last spring. It did not pass, which was disappointing.

You also talk a lot about Canada's role in the world.

What I wanted to ask you about is this. You look at Syria, where we treat some Canadian citizens differently from other Canadian citizens. You look at our arms strategy with cluster munitions, where we're not there any longer as a leader in disarmament. Then you look at things like the ICJ and how our response to the ICJ and the ICC is very different when it happens in certain contexts from when it happens in other contexts.

I'd like you to comment on the reputational risks to Canada. What does this actually mean when the rest of the world is watching Canada and sees that we apply human rights, citizenship and international law differently in different contexts?

What are the implications of that?

Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act

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

Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to ask the parliamentary secretary about another bill from the House that is currently in the Senate, Bill C-281, the international human rights act. That bill was passed by this House. I believe it was unanimous in the end.

It is another important bill that deals with international human rights issues, and as far as I know, it has not moved forward in the Senate. Is the government trying to stop the bill? Are members making phone calls to senators? Does the government want to allow this bill to move forward?

Important human rights legislation, wherever it comes from, should get the support of the House. We would like to see Bill C-281, which was passed unanimously by the House, be brought into law. Can the parliamentary secretary update us on what is or is not happening on this important legislation in terms of the government's conversations with the senators it has appointed?

Human Rights

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

Madam Speaker, the next petition I am presenting is on a private member's bill, Bill C-281, the international human rights act, from a colleague of mine. The petitioners highlight that Canada should be committed to upholding the protection of international human rights. Therefore, they call upon the House to pass Bill C-281 to add protections against human rights violations and to promote a stronger role for Parliament in responding to those violations.

Immigration and Refugee Act

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to enter into debate in this place to touch on some of the very serious issues that are affecting, in this case, not just my constituents and not just Canadians from coast to coast to coast; the bill truly speaks to Canada's role in the world.

Bill S-8, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, to make consequential amendments to other acts and to amend the immigration and refugee protection regulations, speaks to a gap that has been highlighted, and I would like to explore a bit as to why this bill is being brought forward now.

The bill speaks to a gap that exists. There are examples in Canada of those who have been complicit in, profited from or may have even been involved in some of the most heinous crimes globally, whether during a revolution or during regime changes. These people have not specifically been sanctioned in many cases, but were a part of a regime that participated in massive human rights violations. Specifically, I will get to some of those examples as they apply to Iran.

We see that there is a gap. When somebody comes to this country and applies for permanent resident status or maybe even citizenship, their application will be judged based on the merits of that application, when it is quite possible that this individual may have been complicit, as I mentioned, in very serious and heinous crimes.

What the legislation purports to do, and I will get into some of the challenges, is take a baby step in the right direction, although there seems to be as much ambiguity being added to the process as there is an attempt to address some of the challenges that exist. The bill would help to ensure that this cannot happen.

I think it bears mentioning that the changes in this bill are long overdue. Given some of the loopholes that have allowed these perpetrators of human rights violations to come to Canada and the fact that these gaps may exist, the changes are long overdue.

Why did it take eight years for that to take place? As we know, a global security challenge has shaken the very foundations of what we all came to take for granted. Specifically, as I am sure members know, that is the conflict, the Russian aggression, against the state of Ukraine. All of a sudden, there it was, although certainly there have been many conflicts, including many that have risen to the point where sanctions have had to be applied.

We see how this conflict brought in a whole barrage of sanctions against Russians and those who are sympathetic to, or involved in, the activities of a country that is devastating a state and impacting the people of Ukraine. The fact is that there would be this loophole that actors who may be complicit in abuses can profit from. The current law does not specifically mention that, and that is a key point here. That it is not specifically mentioned would grant someone the possibility of coming to Canada to be given safe haven.

As we heard in the expert testimony before the Senate committee and as we heard from stakeholders on this subject, there is some ambiguity about what exactly the bill would allow the government to do versus what the bill is being said to do. I would just highlight that it was long overdue to see these loopholes fixed, but in typical fashion, the government is proposing a bill, in this case going through the Senate, that is admirable in its intentions. The government gets an “A” for the announcement, but when it comes to the delivery and the implications of what is being proposed, there remain many outstanding questions.

I think that is a troubling trend that we have seen across a host of issues. The government, over the last eight years, has been really good at the politics of legislation; however, it fails in the actual hard work of governing, and that is truly what is key when it comes to so many things in our country. It takes hard work. It is not just about announcements. It is easy to stand in front of a podium and make an announcement; it is a whole lot harder to actually get down and get to work.

As a farmer, I know that if someone simply thought about and talked about the planting season, that person certainly will not be successful. Work is required to put the seed in the ground and to make sure that it can come to the point of harvest in the fall and everything associated with that.

It is the same thing with vineyards. There is a burgeoning wine sector in the Peterborough area. It is very exciting, and my colleague and I have had some chats about it with, I think, the chair of the wine caucus as well. I mention that as well.

I will take this opportunity, since my colleague is here talking about one of his passions, to say that it was a pleasure for me to see Bill C-281 pass just this past week, I believe with unanimous support, and how important it is that parliamentary oversight was given to the Magnitsky sanctions regime here in Canada, that Parliament could trigger that, and that there would have to be a mechanism for reporting to this place to ensure accountability to our democratic infrastructure.

The reason I believe this is important, and let me highlight a few examples of why this is important, is that we have seen an increasing disconnect between the executive government in our nation and Parliament. That is incredibly concerning for a whole host of reasons, but it very directly applies to what we are talking about here today.

Bill C-281, in one of its four parts, specifically addresses making sure that accountability comes back to the people's House here in the House of Commons and that there is that reporting mechanism.

Further, we see a disconnect, and I will not get into the myriad examples outside of this issue, in the Americanization of the separation between the executive and legislative branches of Parliament. That is very concerning. That is not how our system is meant to operate.

Our Prime Minister sits in the House of Commons and our cabinet ministers are members of the House of Commons, and it is absolutely key that there be that close connection between the executive government and the legislative branch of our government. When there is a separation, we see that many of the issues that Canadians are facing, and the scandals and the erosion of trust in our institutions and whatnot, can be pointed back to the fact that we have a government that refuses to acknowledge the will that is expressed by the people in the House of Commons. That can not be highlighted any more clearly than when it comes to the issue of the IRGC.

What is unique about Westminster democracy is that it is Parliament that is the chief arbiter of the nation. This principle of Parliamentary supremacy is absolutely key to how we do business in this country, and yet we have, increasingly, the Liberals taking things for granted. They may have confidence on financial measures and whatnot, but when it comes to actually addressing issues, of course, we see that Liberals reject the will of Parliament and by nature the will of the people when it comes to calling a public inquiry into foreign election interference.

We also saw that happen, very troublingly, when it came to the issue of the IRGC. It was this House that voted in favour of listing the IRGC as a terrorist entity. This House voted in favour of that listing multiple times. It is dumbfounding, quite frankly, that the government would refuse to take that action when the people of this country, by nature of this institution of the House of Commons, the keystone of democratic involvement in our country, have said that this should be the case.

The Liberals have tried to explain that away, but it is that disconnect that exists. It may be inconvenient to the political whims of the government on a whole host of issues but we need to get back to the roots of why this place exists.

I have highlighted some of the challenges, but let me finish by highlighting one challenge that I think merits significant attention, and that is the increasingly unstable circumstance of the situation in Asia, with China and some of the gestures that are being made toward Taiwan, and the issues with Russia's invasion of Ukraine. There are a whole host of other issues.

It behooves all of us to make sure that we get this right to ensure that Canada cannot be a place where international war criminals or those who have profited from war crimes and the worst possible actions can come for safe haven.

I support this bill. It takes a small step in the right direction, although there is certainly much more work that needs to be done.

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

Madam Speaker, my private member's bill, Bill C-281, provides parliamentary oversight in order for the Magnitsky act to be triggered.

Does the member believe, as I do, that sanctions are not being triggered often enough by the current government, and that there are many human rights violators who are getting off scot-free in this world?

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

Madam Speaker, my question related to Bill S-8 is on my private member's bill, Bill C-281. The NDP, supported by the Conservatives, introduced the idea in the amendment to have an international human rights strategy. Unfortunately, the Liberals decided to shoot that idea down. I still think it is a great one. Does the member agree with me?

Motion in Amendment

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

moved:

That Bill S‑8 be amended by deleting the long title.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address Bill S-8 today. This is important legislation that Conservatives have been supportive of. It is also an opportunity to discuss the significant problems with the sanctions regime that we have seen under the government, including the failure to move quickly enough to sanction perpetrators of violence around the world, the failure to be consistent and the failure to apply sanctions in some critical cases where that is required.

I want to focus my remarks today on expressing support for the modifications, as we supported them at committee, around inadmissibility to Canada being tied in with sanctioning. I also want to highlight the gaps, in terms of the government's responses when it has come to sanctioning.

The trend we are seeing overall, in terms of sanctioning, is to try to be as precise and as targeted as possible. This is done to minimize the harm to a civilian population in association with sanctioning and to have sharp sanctions against perpetrators of violence to hold them accountable for their own actions, as well as to sanction those institutions that are involved in violence and the flow of resources that allows violent regimes to hurt their own people and people in other countries.

More and more precise sanctions, broadly speaking, are a positive development. However, as we move in this direction, we need to ensure precision and enforcement, as well as that we are not missing things or allowing holes in the process that render the sanctions that have been put in place ineffective. We also need to ensure that enforcement is in place as required and that it is effective.

Another trend we have seen is the adoption throughout the world of Magnitsky sanctions legislation, which is part of that trend of narrowing in precision and targeting those responsible for violence. In particular, it aims sanctions at those involved in gross violations of human rights.

In the past, those involved in violations of human rights in other parts of the world would generally have stayed in their own countries. However, in the globalized world we live in today, it is much more common for oppressors, oligarchs and maybe their family members to take their ill-gotten gains and try to use them to vacation, attend school and do other things in various other parts of the world, including the United States, Canada, Europe, etc. Magnitsky sanctions provide us with a unique opportunity to try to deter human rights abuses by saying to those who are involved in gross violations of human rights that they are not going to be able to engage in this kind of travel, move their money or spend time in Canada or other parts of the world if they cross certain thresholds in terms of violations of human rights.

Another reason these types of sanctions are very effective is that, when people are part of violent autocratic regimes, they often realize that these regimes can turn on those within them. As the saying goes, “Sometimes the show trial comes for you.” These corrupt officials who have been involved in violence are often thinking in the back of their minds, “What is the escape hatch that I could have if I need to leave my country at some point? Can I move my money? Can I create a kind of golden parachute that would allow me to leave the regime I am a part of, if I need to?”

Magnitsky sanctions, by sanctioning individuals who are involved in human rights abuses, are a way of saying that if individuals cross a certain threshold in terms of violation of fundamental human rights or if individuals are identified as being involved in violence against civilians, human rights violations or threats to international peace and security, they could be sanctioned and therefore prevented from finding that escape hatch. One corollary to the point of people maybe wanting to escape at some point but being told that they would not be able to escape and using that as a way of deterring human rights abuses is that, in order for these sanctions to be effective, they have to be imposed in coordination.

If Canada, the U.S. and our partners in Europe are sanctioning different people, then those who may be sanctioned in one place but not another would still have that escape option available to them. However, if like-minded countries are coordinated, then it shuts off the potential options of escape for those involved in human rights abuses. Therefore, it puts pressure on them to stop or at least to limit their violations of fundamental human rights.

They know there will be significant consequences for them if they persist in this direction. I think we have a big problem with impunity right now. People who are involved in human rights violations believe they will get away with it, because we do not have effective systems to hold people accountable. Magnitsky sanctions are a key tool for countering that.

It is in that spirit that Senator Andreychuk and, in this place, my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman put forward the Magnitsky sanctions bill. It initially received a cold response from the government, but eventually, it was passed unanimously. With Bill S-8, if an individual is subject to sanctions, including under the Magnitsky act, they are also considered inadmissible to Canada. It lines up inadmissibility provisions with sanctions provisions. This is positive.

The problem is that the Magnitsky act and other sanctions tools give the government tools to use for sanctioning individuals, but unfortunately, the government has been reluctant to use them. For a number of years now, the government has not used the Magnitsky sanctions tool. When it was passed, the Magnitsky act provided the government with tools for sanctioning human rights abusers under the Special Economic Measures Act, and some of that has been done.

However, the absence of the use of the Magnitsky act is troubling, especially because the act is an important mechanism of coordination among allies. Multiple countries have a Magnitsky act, and if we are able to use our Magnitsky act and coordinate with other countries' use of their Magnitsky acts, we can send a stronger, clearer message of deterrence to human rights abusers.

The government has been very reluctant to use a tool that it has been given by Parliament and encouraged by Parliament to use. Recognizing the failure of the government to use the Magnitsky act sufficiently, we have actually put forward a new private member's bill. It just passed this place, and it is on its way to the Senate.

Bill C-281 would create a parliamentary trigger mechanism that would allow a committee, in the House or in the Senate, to pass a motion calling on the government to list an individual under the Magnitsky act. The government would then have to provide a response to that committee within a time frame consistent with the time frame for responses to committee reports in the Standing Orders. It would have to provide that response regardless of, for instance, whether there is a prorogation.

We recognize the value of the coordination that we are seeing in Bill S-8, but like any other sanctions tools, it is only as good as its use. If the government is failing to use that tool, then we are still going to have a significant problem.

I want to use this opportunity to call on the government to use more sanctions and more effective targeted sanctions against the military junta in Burma. I have met with various communities from Burma recently. There is an urgent need to support pro-democracy and opposition movements in Burma, as well as to apply tighter, more rigorous and more effective sanctions against the Burmese regime.

That is the case for a number of reasons. One is that the Burmese regime is supporting and co-operating with the Putin regime. We see increasing collaboration among countries that are seeking to violently upset the international rules-based order, as well as a sharing of weapons and technology among them. If we want to effectively sanction the Putin regime and deter further violence by that regime, then we also have to be sanctioning the partners that are supplying them with military technology; that includes the government of Burma.

The government of Burma has also been involved in horrific violence against civilians. It is undertaking a campaign of air strikes targeting civilians that is horrific in its proportions. It follows, of course, the Rohingya genocide that we spoke extensively about in the House a number of years ago. It has been positive to see an increasing collaboration or reconciliation among various ethnic minority communities and the pro-democracy movement, including Rohingya in that process, of course.

More work needs to be done there, and Canada needs to stand with opposition groups. That includes sanctioning the Burmese regime. In particular, the government should be applying tough sanctions to prevent aviation fuel from getting into Burma. Aviation fuel is what is allowing the military junta in Burma to undertake these horrific air strikes against civilians. Sadly, until now, this has been a gap in terms of government sanctions, but I hope it will step up and improve in that respect.

Overall, we are supportive of Bill S-8, but we are very concerned about the government's failure to use the tools that are available to it on sanctions. We call on it to apply those tools more effectively.

The House resumed from June 5 consideration of the motion that 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, be read the third time and passed.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, the recorded divisions on the motion to concur in the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Health; the second reading of Bill C-284, An Act to establish a national strategy for eye care; the second reading of Bill S-202, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Parliamentary Visual Artist Laureate); and the third reading 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, be held before the other recorded divisions deferred today.

International Human Rights Act

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

Madam Speaker, I welcome colleagues, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak about Bill C-281, the international human rights act, and to congratulate my colleague. Over this journey we have had together on this bill, I have been working to get his constituency's name right. It is Northumberland—Peterborough South. I want to recognize the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South for putting forward this bill. I spoke at report stage about the provisions of this bill, and I want to focus on something else at third reading, which is how people will be able to use this bill.

I spent the entire parliamentary recess week in the greater Toronto area, meeting with different communities, with the primary goal of sharing and discussing Bill C-281. There was a lot of support from different communities, from the Yazidi community, the Persian community, various African communities, the Hong Kong community and eastern European communities. There is a lot of support for this bill in the impact it would have. People were asking how we would use it and what concrete difference it would make.

My hope is that Canadians of all backgrounds would eagerly await, every year, the government's publication of its annual report on international human rights. People will be able to look through that report to say, “What does the government say it is doing? What are the areas where the government is not doing enough?”

They will then be able to hold the government accountable and say, “Why has it not talked about Ethiopia? Why has it not talked about Yazidis? Why has it not talked about Rohingya this year?”

They will be able to look to see where the areas of action have been and where the areas of inaction have been and then hold the government accountable to ask why more has not been done. They can then look at the following year's report to ask if there has been progress in relation to the previous year's report or not. Are there individuals that communities want to see the government advocating for, in terms of their release? Are those names in the report? If they are not in the report this year, there is a jumping-off point for advocating for their inclusion next year

Right now, so much of this advocacy, whether it concerns prisoners of conscience, human rights in general or listing individuals under various sanctions provisions, happens in a bit of a black hole of information. There are no requirements right now around this sort of reporting. If people want to advocate for individuals to be listed, for sanctions to be considered in various ways or for human rights advocacy, it can be very difficult to know what the government is doing and where the access points are for that advocacy.

This bill strengthens the Canadian government's engagement on human rights, we hope. It strengthens the tools that parliamentarians have, but it also provides broader tools for communities across the country who are concerned about human rights issues.

If one wants to see somebody sanctioned for human rights abuses they are involved in, one can advocate directly to members of Parliament, who can then put forward motions at committee. If one wants to know whether the government is doing anything on a particular human rights issue, one can look at the human rights report and ask if it is doing anything, if it is not doing enough or if one is satisfied. Then one can advocate for the government to change its approach and hope to see that change in approach reflected the following year.

This is important for communities of people who are concerned about human rights issues, not because this bill is going to usher in nirvana, and not because things will be perfect after the bill is passed, but because it provides critical tools of advocacy and mechanisms for people to know what is going on, to advocate and to make a difference.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank colleagues of mine who have spoken to Bill C-281.

The New Democrats will be supporting this bill at third reading. I would like to thank the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South for bringing it forward. It has been a real pleasure to work with him and his team on this bill over the past few months.

The reason for this bill is that we want to make sure Canada's laws protect human rights. We want to strengthen that legislation. We want to strengthen how Canada acts with regard to international human rights. For me, I want to remember, while we do this work, that people's lives are at risk. These are people who are being detained, who have disappeared and who are suffering greatly. Canada could play an important role there.

I want to start my speech today by talking about a few of those people.

I want to talk about Vladimir Kara-Murza, who has recently been sentenced to 25 years in prison in Russia because he opposed Putin's illegal war in Ukraine. I know that a number of people from all parties are hoping that the government will offer Vladimir Kara-Murza honorary citizenship in Canada to help protect him.

I also know there are others. It has been over a decade, getting close to two decades, since Huseyin Celil, a Canadian citizen, has been able to see his family. There is also Dong Guangping, whose wife and daughter are Canadians. We do not know where he is right now.

There is a lot of work to do on human rights, and I want to make sure that we always centre this work on the people who suffer, the people who are impacted by this.

As many have said before me, this bill has four changes to pieces of Canadian legislation. It requires 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. It amends the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, the Sergei Magnitsky act. It also requires the issue or renewal of broadcasting licences in the case of genocide to be prohibited. Obviously these are all things that I think are very important and very strong to do.

We were happy to bring some amendments forward. That first piece about providing the list is important. I know the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South spoke to many families of victims, and they wanted more information; they wanted that there. We were also conscious that there are some concerns. We do not want to put people's lives in danger. We do not want to make situations worse. We always need to act with an abundance of caution when we are working with things that are very sensitive.

The NDP brought forward an amendment that would change the list to give the government the ability to protect people but still give information to families, parliamentarians, activists and human rights defenders around the world. It was a compromise, and a really strong one, that makes the legislation better. It was lovely to see support from all parties on that.

Our second amendment was on a human rights strategy. I have brought this up in this House before. We asked for there to be a human rights strategy in this country. Most Canadians probably feel we have one. We do not have a human rights strategy. We have no benchmark to measure how well the government of the day is doing in protecting human rights. That does not exist.

It makes sense to me, and I think it is a very common-sense thing, to include that and have the government do it. Unfortunately, the government chose to vote against that. It chose not to move forward on that in a way that makes me believe it simply did not want to do the hard work. It simply did not want to have to do the work to create that strategy and keep it updated.

It is very disappointing, particularly considering that the government is asking for a seat at the United Nations Human Rights Council as we speak. It is very disappointing, because time and time again, we hear the government talking about being defenders of human rights while at the same time failing time and time again to do the hard work to protect human rights. A perfect example of that for me is watching the Liberal government, as reported yesterday in The Globe and Mail, continue to sell more arms to Saudi Arabia than any other country aside from the United States, despite the fact that Saudi Arabia has an appalling human rights record, despite the fact that this does not align with our Arms Trade Treaty and despite the fact that the government continues to claim that it has stopped doing it.

As we see, there is a record of the government speaking about human rights, and talking about being human rights defenders, but failing to act when it comes to it.

One of the things that I really want to talk about today is the piece in this bill around cluster munitions. This, for me, is the absolute ultimate in the Liberals' ability to say one thing when they are in opposition and do a completely different thing once they are elected as government. In the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, section 11 carves out the ability for the Canadian military to use cluster munitions in the event it is working with another military that uses them. In 2013, the NDP worked very closely with the Liberal government to put restrictions in place to fix that loophole. Paul Dewar, the NDP 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.”

There is one other quote that I would like to share, if I could, which states:

Canada should not be escaping its responsibilities by choosing to implement a treaty in this way. It makes a mockery of our commitment. It makes a mockery of our understanding of what it means to actually put into effect and to put into operation a treaty obligation that we signed. It will provide for total confusion with respect to what Canada and Canadians troops have actually agreed to do.

That is why, while we support the bill going to committee, we have great difficulty with the way in which the government has chosen to interpret the treaty in clause 11 of the bill.

That sounds like it was Paul Dewar, but in fact, it was Bob Rae, speaking as a Liberal, saying how much Liberals disagreed with clause 11.

The language New Democrats chose in our amendment to close that loophole in Bill C-281 was the exact language that our former colleague Marc Garneau had used when he stood in this place and said that section 11 was a loophole that needed to be closed. Again, we find ourselves in a situation where the Liberals have said time and time again, when they were not in government, that they wanted to fix this loophole. Some of the pre-eminent voices within their caucus, Mr. Garneau and Mr. Rae, people who would be seen as good, staunch Liberals, wanted to fix that loophole and saw that as important, but when it came down to doing the work, when it came down to them actually fixing it, they chose not to.

It has been very difficult for me to listen to the government try to make excuses for this. It has been very difficult for me to listen to Liberals try to justify why they continue to support the loophole for cluster munitions, which is similar to why they continue to sell arms to Saudi Arabia. Before they were elected, they also said they would support nuclear disarmament, but whenever we asked them whether they would even attend the TPNW, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, even as observers, even the fact that many NATO members do attend as observers, they declined to participate.

My ask of the government members would be for them to please be the Liberals they were before they were elected in 2015 and to please think about nuclear disarmament and human rights the way they did before 2015 because, since 2015, their record has been appalling, and human rights are far too important for this continual politicization.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madame Speaker, before I begin my comments, I would like to say a few words. Quebec is in a very difficult situation right now. Over 150 forest fires are burning on the north shore, in Abitibi and in Lac-Saint-Jean. My colleagues are working on the front lines of that situation. Thousands of families have been evacuated.

Meanwhile, another tragedy has occurred on the north shore. Five people went capelin fishing and drowned. Four of those were children. It is not clear whether they were members of the same family, but it is a terrible tragedy.

I would like to say to the devastated families and the families who have been evacuated that we are thinking of them and they have our heartfelt sympathy. We are hoping for rain as soon as possible to put an end to the forest fires.

I thank my colleague for introducing Bill C-281. It is an important bill that is quite robust and touches on many issues. I think that, more than ever, we need greater transparency on human rights. I think that is one of the objectives of this bill.

This bill has four components.

The first objective of the bill is to increase government transparency. The government will be required to report to the House on international human rights issues. It will therefore be required to report more frequently. I will talk about that later.

The second objective of the bill is to impose new measures to counter corrupt foreign officials, particularly by requiring that the Minister of Foreign Affairs respond within 40 days to any committee report recommending sanctions against a foreign national under the Magnitski Law.

The third objective of the bill is to prohibit the licensing of foreign propaganda broadcasting undertakings when the state is recognized by the House of Commons as having committed genocide or is facing sanctions. No one needs to be a genius to know that this refers primarily to China, but also to Russia and other states.

The fourth objective of the bill is to prohibit any investment in an entity that contravenes the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act. Still today, throughout the world, weapons that were once used in a war are still on the ground ten years later. Children often go through those areas where bombs may have fallen and where parts of those devices may still explode and cause serious injuries and deaths. Moreover, the victims are often children. It is unacceptable that that is still happening today.

Let us go back to the first component, government transparency regarding international human rights. I think that more than ever there is a need to ensure that Canada's actions advance the ongoing cases and issues of those who are unjustly detained. Transparency would allow for joint work with organizations such as Amnesty International. It would also enable families to be actively involved in a communication and dissemination strategy that is consistent with their needs. That would make it possible for civil society to support advocacy and grievances and for elected officials to follow up on real-life situations, which would help advance international human rights.

I spoke earlier about the case of Raif Badawi. This is a clear case of unjust imprisonment. Mr. Badawi was imprisoned for 10 years simply for having posted things against his government on Facebook. His case received a lot of media coverage. His wife is still advocating for him. She is travelling around the world to talk about her husband’s case, to talk about human rights and all these issues. In Canada, we are doing nothing. We have no news. We do not know what is happening. Mr. Badawi is no longer in prison, but he is still stuck in his country. He would like to come and join his children, whom he has not seen for 10 years. His wife is here and his children are growing up. It is outrageous that we have no news and that the government is not more transparent.

The second component, imposing new measures against corrupt foreign officials, speaks to all the foreign interference problems that have been talked about in recent weeks. It is completely inconceivable that foreign individuals in Canada can threaten Canadians here, in Canada. We have heard stories. In the Uyghur community, people have been threatened and harassed and families have split up. It is an inconceivable tragedy.

Of course, we also immediately think of the case of the Chinese diplomat linked to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, which we discussed here for many weeks. Despite all the questions asked, we never truly learned what the government did or did not know. We never received much of an answer to that. I think it is really important, particularly since the government is not acting quickly to stop activities that jeopardize the safety of a Canadian individual. That is the situation. We asked questions, but we do not know what the government knows. We are unable to get to the bottom of things.

This bill will ensure that there will be more frequent reporting. Perhaps we may get answers.

I sit on the Special Committee on the Canada-People's Republic of China Relationship. Recently we submitted a report entitled “A Threat to Canadian Sovereignty: National Security Dimensions of the Canada-People’s Republic of China Relationship”. It is an unnecessarily long title, but it addresses human rights in China. The report states:

The report recounted threats and intimidation faced by individuals with personal connections or work related to the PRC at the hands of PRC state actors and their proxies. Among other things, witnesses spoke of:

Attempts to limit freedom of expression through threatening phone calls or emails, cyberhacking and physical confrontation;

I would also like to mention that the Canada—Hong Kong Parliamentary Friendship Group met with representatives from Hong Kong Watch last week. They reported situations similar to those disclosed by the witnesses who appeared before the special committee. These examples of threats and intimidation can be found in the report, which describes them as the “coordinated use of counter-protesters, Chinese international students, and pro-Beijing United Front organizations to block and intimidate peaceful demonstrations in Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, Vancouver and Ottawa”.

Another example cited in the report is the “publication of private information online to intimidate protest participants”.

The report continues as follows:

During the study, some witnesses alleged the harassment they experienced had been encouraged or instigated by PRC diplomats. The Special Committee therefore recommended that the Government of Canada convey, to the Ambassador of the PRC in Canada, that any interference with the rights and freedoms of people in Canada would result in serious consequences. It also recommended that the Government of Canada carefully review accredited diplomatic personnel in the People’s Republic of China’s diplomatic missions to Canada.

After much harassment in the House, Canada finally expelled the diplomat who had been involved with the MP. However, it was complicated and took a long time, and it had to be made public before the government decided to take action.

Canada can no longer afford to be complacent about situations like this. It is unacceptable. We are being laughed at. Swift, consistent responses are needed to counter this type of interference, which threatens our sovereignty.

The third element of Bill C‑281 seeks to prohibit broadcasting licences from being issued to foreign propaganda companies when the House of Commons or Senate has recognized the foreign government as having committed genocide or when it is subject to sanctions.

The same special committee report mentions that the People's Republic of China has been identified “as one of the countries that has attempted to interfere in Canadian elections”. That much is proven.

I remember when a representative from Hong Kong Watch appeared before the committee. I told her that there was a documented case of interference in the election of a municipal candidate in Brossard. The Chinese regime was sending messages in Mandarin to people in Brossard using a platform called WeChat to encourage them to vote for that candidate. I naively asked the representative from Hong Kong Watch whether such a thing were possible at the provincial or federal level, and she basically laughed in my face. She found the question to be completely ridiculous because the answer was so obvious to her.

It is clear that the Chinese regime has been attempting for years to influence municipal, provincial and federal elections here in Canada in any way possible. There is no doubt that issues are coming to light. People are talking about it more and more, but the government is still not doing anything about it.

I want to come back to another aspect of the special committee's report with regard to ACHK. It reads, and I quote:

The organization added, “[m]any Canadian political actors genuinely believe that they are interacting with community organizers and grassroots organizations, when in fact they are interacting with actors that have close connections with the Chinese consulates or the Embassy.”

This happened in Brossard. We know that the Chinese police stations start out as community centres that help people with various issues, such as integration, poverty and employment. Then these centres slowly turn into intelligence centres.

It is not clear. There are grey areas. People naively thought that these centres had been shut down, but we recently learned that they are still open and operating. I am referring to the two centres in Brossard and the one in Montreal. They were supposedly shut down. The RCMP—

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Madam Speaker, I am speaking to Bill C-281 today and would like to comment on two main themes.

First, I would like to comment briefly on the portion of the bill that would amend the Broadcasting Act. My colleague, the hon. member for Pierrefonds—Dollard, began commenting on this during the debate at report stage, and I think it is worth highlighting a few points that come from this side of the House. Afterwards, I would like to speak to human rights generally and the government's commitment to promoting and protecting human rights, both globally and here at home. This is a core part of our foreign policy and is essential to our party's approach to politics.

Broadcasting plays an important role in Canadian society. It allows for Canadians to exchange ideas, enriches our democracy and can play an important role in advancing human rights. Bill C-281 would recognize this important role by prohibiting the issuance or renewal of broadcasting licences to broadcasters that are vulnerable to significant influence by certain foreign nationals or entities of concern. Measures to protect the broadcasting system from influences are important, especially when it comes to critical issues related to human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

That said, despite the intent behind this proposal, ensuring that broadcasts that go against Canada's fundamental commitment to human rights are not on the airwaves, the bill, in its original format, was troubling. I am glad that, thanks to Liberal proposals at the committee, it has been significantly improved. It is crucial to respect the independence of the CRTC as a quasi-judicial administrative tribunal that serves at arm's length from the federal government as a regulator for broadcasting and telecommunication. In Canada, the CRTC is our expert regulator, comprising professionals with comprehensive knowledge of the broadcasting industry. It is independent, and it is well known and recognized, as it operates outside of the political sphere and has done so since 1968. It must continue to act in the public interest and make use of the full regulatory tool kit. The bill would now ensure that the CRTC can use the full scope of its power to deal with broadcasters under the significant influence of an individual who has been sanctioned, or who has been implicated in genocide or other crimes against humanity.

Additionally, I would like to recognize the important role played by Canadian courts and by international tribunals to which Canada is a signatory, such as the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice, in making legal determinations of genocide and other crimes against humanity. While the House has an important role in shining a light on these types of bad acts and being at the leading edge of international responses, it is crucial that the political determinations we make in the House are not confused with decisions that have full legal standing both in Canada and abroad.

Next, I would like to speak to Canada's work in promoting and protecting human rights around the world, which goes far above and beyond the proposal in this bill. In fact, should the new reporting requirements for the government proposed in this bill go forward, I am confident Canadians would gain a better understanding of just how strong the government has been on this front. Just last month, the Minister of Foreign Affairs announced that Canada would be seeking a seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council for the 2028-30 term.

Human rights are the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world. When there is greater respect for human rights globally, the world is more stable, prosperous and resilient. Unfortunately, they are also currently under attack, and the multilateral system that underpins these rights is under threat like never before. This is evident in challenges such as illegal wars of aggression against Ukraine, rising racism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and discrimination and an intensifying backlash against the most basic rights of women, girls and 2SLGBTQI+ people.

In order to confront the challenges that lie ahead, we must work together to reinforce the foundation of human rights and strive toward a more just tomorrow for everyone. Multilateral institutions play a crucial role in continued and effective engagement on human rights, online and off-line, and to holding countries accountable for their international human rights obligations, including respect for gender equality, the rights of freedom of expression, the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association, and freedom of religion or belief. I encourage members of all parties to come together in support of initiatives that advance Canada's work on this matter, such as our candidacy for the UN Human Rights Council and many of the concepts proposed by this bill.

In her announcement, the Minister of Foreign Affairs outlined that Canada's candidacy will be based on six priorities. As a member of the council, Canada aims to support the vital and courageous work of human rights defenders, strive for a more inclusive future for all, advance reconciliation with indigenous people, prioritize gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls in all of their diversity, reduce harms online, and work with others to address the adverse impacts of climate change, which Canadians across the country know all too well, given the wildfires raging across much of the country. These objectives are ambitious, but with determination and in close collaboration with other countries, indigenous partners and civil society we can advance these objectives and achieve a better future for all.

The minister also noted that the government's engagement on this issue is built on a desire to strengthen the international human rights system. It also reflects our approach here at home, where we stand up for the human rights of all Canadians. For example, we are currently celebrating Pride Month. It is a time for 2SLGBTQI+ communities and allies to come together to celebrate the resilience of the pride movement and to show the beauty and talent of our community, while also continuing to advocate for a safer and more inclusive Canada. It is necessary for us to keep in mind that, while it is important that we take the opportunity to recognize the hard-earned victories of the pride movement, we must continue pushing back on the sharp rise in anti-trans hate, anti-2SLGBTQI+ legislation, protests at drag events, the banning of educational books in schools, and calls against raising the pride flag. I am glad that, on this side of the House, working on that type of issue is a key part of our approach to human rights.

In that regard, I want to thank all the municipalities across the country that raised the pride flag on June 1. I want to thank them because it is important. Resistance is rising across the world. Last week's flag raising is humbling, and I want to thank all of the mayors who participated.

Canada's Human Rights Council candidacy adds to a consistently strong voice for the protection and promotion of human rights and the advancement of democratic values. It is without question that the human rights bodies of the United Nations are the foundation of a strong and effective international human rights system.

Canada is party to several international human rights instruments and disarmament conventions, including the Convention on Cluster Munitions, to which we acceded in 2015. This convention, in fact, takes inspiration from the work of another great former Liberal foreign affairs minister, the Hon. Lloyd Axworthy, who led the charge in the 1990s on banning the use of land mines. Cluster munitions pose a devastating and indiscriminate threat to civilians in conflict and post-conflict contexts. Having immediate and long-term effects due to high failure rates, these weapons are dangerous and hinder sustainable development and post-conflict recovery for affected societies.

Canada has played a critical role in encouraging the international community to accede to the convention and ultimately eradicate these deadly weapons from the world. Canada meets its international obligations outlined in the convention through the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act. We have also made significant investments to support programming that aims to eliminate cluster munitions and all unexploded ordnances of war. Over the past two decades, Canada has contributed over $450 million to this end. Our international programming addresses key elements of explosive ordnance clearance work, including national implementation support, stockpile destruction, gender mainstreaming, risk education, training and victim assistance. This work is essential to the sustainable facilitation of the safe return of civilian populations, reconstruction of affected communities and the restoration of essential services for generations to come.

All countries have a duty to promote and protect human rights under international law and the United Nations charter.

I want to thank my hon. colleague for putting this bill forward, and I look forward to further debate.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his important bill. It is a step forward in terms of government transparency, which is what my question will focus on.

Bill C‑281 does, however, raise some issues. Consider the case of Raif Badawi and his wife Ensaf Haidar, a past Bloc Québécois candidate. Mr. Badawi spent 10 years in a Saudi Arabian prison. Although he has been released from prison, he is not permitted to travel. He is not allowed to come here. In essence, he is still not really free. He is still over there.

It has been a long time. Canada has not been able to do anything for him. He served his 10 years in prison and remains in Saudi Arabia. The government has still not shown accountability. We have no idea what discussions the government has been having.

Apart from his bill, does my colleague have any ideas about how the government could be more transparent and take concrete action?

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

moved that 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, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour and privilege to rise in this House on behalf of the people of Northumberland—Peterborough South. Today, it is a particular honour because I rise with respect to my private member's bill, Bill C-281, on human rights.

Just to give a little context before I jump into the substance of this legislation, I want to say that we are extremely blessed to live in the greatest country in the world, a country where we can be assured of the rule of law and where people can disagree without there being any physical violence. In the last three weeks of Parliament, I imagine we will hear some rancorous debate, which I am sure the Speaker will do a great job presiding over, along with some arguments and other things that may not be as pretty as they could be. However, they will be a lot better than the alternative, which, of course, would be violence.

In too many countries around the world, people have been resorting to violence. There are many countries where people will spend the night awake, waiting to see what their government might attempt to do to them. People who are just standing up for who they are, what they believe in and how they choose to worship stay up nights in living, shaking fear of an authoritarian regime or some goon or thug coming in to threaten them, simply because of the way they live. Worse yet, they may be arrested, put in jail or tortured. Right now, many are sitting around and rotting in horrible conditions, suffering through torture and unthinkable, unbelievable pain at the hands of governments around the world. Therefore, it gives me great pride today to discuss my private member's bill, which seeks to at least move the ball a little bit forward towards more humane conditions while advocating for human rights around the world.

Bill C-281 has four primary sections, or clauses. The first section deals with prisoners of conscience. Prisoners of conscience are people around the world who are being detained, sitting in prisons right now, simply because of their beliefs or thoughts. They are fighting for virtuous causes like liberty, freedom of religion or freedom of expression. They are in incredible pain and suffering. Anything that Canadians and the Canadian government can do to alleviate or reduce their suffering is something that I think we should do as quickly as we can.

My private member's bill seeks to give the Canadian people and Parliament oversight of the government's advocacy for these individuals, these important people around the world. Specifically, it puts on to the government a reporting regime that forces it to report what actions it is taking to help prisoners of conscience around the world. It would have to report how many prisoners of conscience the government's Department of Foreign Affairs is aware of and what it is doing to aid their cause; it would also have to determine whether it has been deemed helpful by the families of these victims to publish their names.

I have had the great privilege of talking to some of the family members in Canada whose loved ones are in prisons around the world; there is one in particular who is in Venezuela. They want the name of their loved one, their brother in this case, to be published, because it would add gravitas. They would be able to point to a government report to say, “Yes, the Canadian government agrees with me. My loved one, my spouse, my sister or my child is being held not because they have done a crime but because they believed in the cause of freedom, democracy or religious freedom.” The report will go on to say what the Canadian government is doing.

I will not cast aspersions in this House, because I do not think that would be parliamentary. However, I think it is fair to say that many observers out there have written about the fact that the cause of human rights has sometimes been forgotten when carrying out international diplomacy or economic trade. However, human rights should be something we stand on. Human rights should be something that demands transparency and accountability.

This private member's bill would get us there with respect to accountability and transparency. It would have the government tell us why it has not been taking action with respect to prisoners of conscience or individuals who believe that they are prisoners of conscience. There will be various groups of individuals and organizations that will look at this report and ask why a certain individual is not included or why there are only 10 prisoners of conscience in Venezuela, when surely there are many more than that. It would give family members and organizations the ability to push the government to help with care and advocacy and, hopefully, the release of their loved ones. As I said, these are some of the most honourable individuals I can imagine; they are people who have given their lives to the cause of liberty, democracy and freedom. As Canadians, we need to do everything we can to support them.

The next clause is with respect to the Magnitsky sanctions, which are, of course, named after Sergei Magnitsky. Magnitsky was a brilliant tax lawyer in Russia and one of the strongest fighters against Vladimir Putin's incredibly corrupt and devious regime. He stood up to Putin. Unfortunately, he ended up in a prison in Russia. A true warrior for the cause of integrity and honour, Magnitsky wound up passing away in that prison while fighting for what was right, for integrity and honour. The president of Russia, then and now, let him die there from a treatable medical condition that he would not allow him to get treatment for.

Magnitsky's friend and business colleague, Bill Browder, then went around the world trying to get Magnitsky sanctions in place. In my estimation, Magnitsky sanctions are incredibly powerful devices. They seek to put individual sanctions on some of the worst human rights violators in the world. Too often, in the past, human rights violators have gotten up in the morning, tortured victims, then hopped on their jets to attend cocktail parties in some of the most advanced economies around the world, hobnobbing with the world's elites. These are the lowest of the low; they deserve to be sanctioned and not to be given access to our country.

These Magnitsky sanctions are incredibly important tools in our tool box, and when the Magnitsky act was passed, there was a flurry of sanctions put in place for some human rights violators. We started towards the path of holding them accountable. It was a great step, I might add. However, in recent years, it has slowed down to an almost imperceptible trickle of people who have been named under the Magnitsky act. This is challenging.

What is being asked for in the second clause of my private member's bill is to look at giving Parliament oversight. We would not be taking away the power of imposing Magnitsky sanctions, although many legislative bodies around the world have done so. We are simply looking for the government to report back if the Senate, the House or a committee thereof says a person is terrible and is torturing people in Venezuela, Russia or Beijing. It then needs to find out why the government is not sanctioning that individual. All it would require is a very simple report, but it would add transparency and accountability to the government when it does not sanction a terrible human rights violator, when it is letting an individual get up in the morning and torture innocents, then, in the afternoon, fly their private jet to Toronto, B.C. or wherever to hobnob with some of our elites. It is a very reasonable bill in that it does not seek to go too far. It simply looks to hold the worst human rights violators in this world accountable.

The next section is with respect to the Broadcasting Act. During Vladimir Putin's illegal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, we saw that a foreign power can use Canadian airwaves to broadcast its propaganda. Fortunately, the CRTC did the right thing in pulling Russia's licence today, stopping it from broadcasting Vladimir Putin's hatred across Canadian airwaves. Unfortunately, there was no process in place, so the CRTC had to hodgepodge one together. This bill would give the CRTC a process to use when a genocidal state is using Canadian airwaves to broadcast its hatred.

We obviously do not want to restrict freedom of speech or freedom of expression unduly, so this would be a very limited prohibition in that it would need to be a genocidal state utilizing Canadian airwaves. The CRTC could then prevent it from broadcasting on Canadian airwaves. It is an oversight that this does not exist. The idea of a genocidal state broadcasting its hatred, propaganda and promotion of genocide on our airwaves is completely and utterly unacceptable. I am very proud of the proposed Broadcasting Act amendment.

The final amendment is about the prohibiting of cluster munitions. These are all great provisions, and they are all important to me, but this one is of particular importance and relevance to me. I have been to demining fields. We are talking about cluster munitions, but it is a similar concept in demining fields around the world. It is incredibly sad what cluster munitions and mines do to civilian populations. They primarily kill innocent civilians, and in many cases, children. Once the cluster munitions or mines are put down, they can take years or even decades to remove, making otherwise fertile farmland and areas where there could be schools and businesses completely useless for years and decades to come.

Even sadder is the fact that, often, these unexploded ordnances last for years and decades. The ones that are not found are the saddest of all; many children have lost their lives simply by walking somewhere. The really scary, sad and disturbing part is that cluster munitions are bomblets, or bombs of bombs. Imagine one bomb with thousands of little bombs inside that land all over. They are completely indiscriminate, which makes them particularly horrible and terrifying.

They land everywhere, and no one has a map or a marking of where these bomblets went because they are often dropped from thousands of feet up. The wind could take these things in a myriad of different directions. Therefore, mapping them out is nearly impossible. Even if countries that drop them wanted to remove them, it is very difficult to do so and requires a demining process.

The disturbing part is that these bomblets often look like shiny little toys. There have been many reports of small children going out to a play yard or a field and seeing these shiny toys; obviously, the worst happens. These tools are not even valuable when it comes to war. Because they are indiscriminate and not targetable, their value to an army is extremely limited. They are really just weapons of terror, weapons that are completely indiscriminate; because of that, they are particularly dangerous to civilians and children.

As part of this private member's process, I have had the ability to travel a bit in the country and meet with people in communities from all over who settled here in Canada, because they believe, as I do, that Canada is the greatest country on earth. They have told me their stories. They have told me about their suffering. More than once, in either one-on-one or group meetings, I have been brought to tears by their stories.

These individuals are people who have given up their lives, sacrificed their lives, for important things like making sure little girls have the opportunity to go to school; that children, regardless of where they live in the world, have the opportunity to seek an education and improve their lives; that people have the ability to vote for their leadership and not simply be told; that people enjoy freedom and have the right of personal self-determination; and that people have the right of liberty and are able to decide who they want to be, how they want to be and whom they want to love. These people need our help, and this is hopefully at least a small step in that direction, a step in re-establishing Canada as a human rights champion around the world, as it should be.

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.

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

The next part is, “Members of the committee submit their prioritized witness lists for the study of Bill C-47 to the clerk...no later than Wednesday, May 3rd, 2023, at 12 p.m., and that these lists be distributed to members...as soon as possible.”

I would actually take this opportunity.... We still have a couple of days before this motion is passed to get witness lists in to the clerk. I would make a call-out to the folks in my riding. If anyone has been affected by inflation, as many of you have, and you wish to talk, please.... We believe in a democratic process. If you have a good story to tell, we'll certainly do our best to put your name forward for our study here at the finance committee. I'm looking forward to having some great witnesses.

The Conservatives are willing to extend hours and work through the break week to get this done, as I said, in the spirit of good faith, collaboration and congeniality, and in acknowledgement that the Liberals did take the most seats, even if they didn't win the popular vote in the last election.

Unfortunately, two hours is just too long for the Deputy Prime Minister to spend with the people of Canada regarding the finance portfolio she oversees. I guess it's too long for her to come down and talk to the Canadian people. I'm sure she believes she has more important things to do.

I'll go back to the motion, which says, “Moving to clause-by-clause review of Bill C-47 no later than Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 11:00 a.m.” As I said, we would like to bring in the clause-by-clause just three or four days later, on the Monday, so we can do it in the regular course of the meeting. The Conservatives have absolutely no problem sitting throughout the break week to make sure that we can get as much testimony on record as possible and so that we hear from Canadians. We believe that as elected representatives, one of our critical obligations to the people who elected us is to engage with them, talk to them and listen to them.

Then, of course, we have the usual with respect to amendments, which would be on Friday, May 19. If we did move back the date, we would probably move that back as housekeeping, going forward from there.

The motion continues with this:

ii. the clerk of the committee write immediately to each member who is not a member of a caucus represented on the committee and any independent members to inform them of the study of Bill C-47 by the committee and to invite them to prepare and submit any proposed amendments to Bill C-47 which they would suggest that the committee consider during the clause-by-clause study of the Bill

Of course, we do have a number of independents. We used to have Jody Wilson-Raybould, but she was thrown out of the Liberal caucus for speaking truth to power. She decided not to re-up, which is unfortunate because I though she was an excellent member of Parliament.

I'll continue with the motion:

(c) If Bill C-47 is referred to the committee by the House during the subject matter study of the Bill, all witness testimony, evidence and documentation received in public in relation to its subject matter study of Bill C-47 be deemed received by the committee in the context of its legislative study of Bill C-47;

(d) Subject to the approval of the recognized parties' whips, and the availability of meeting slots from the House of Commons, the committee hold as many additional meetings as possible with the goal of accomplishing at least 20 hours of study prior to the beginning of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill;

In the spirit of good faith, the Conservatives are willing to work with this government, but I really believe that 20 hours would be the absolute minimum. I can't overstate the amount of money that the government has going out the door. It's billions and billions of dollars. Think about that. How many billions are being spent and are getting out the door for every hour of witness testimony?

I really believe that the more consultation and engagement in the democratic process we have, the better off Canadians are. Then we can find issues and we can find ways to improve things. No person—no government—is perfect, and this government is certainly far from perfect.

I think it's great to have discussion, to have NDP ideas, Green Party ideas and Conservative Party ideas, so that we can improve this budget. Twenty hours, to me, is the very minimum of what we should be utilizing to discuss this—not to delay or in any way obstruct the process, but to make sure that as many voices as possible are heard.

Next is (e), which recommends this:

(e) That the Chair of the Committee write, as promptly as possible, to the Chairs of the following standing committees to invite them to study the subject matter of the following provisions of Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament....

I think my colleague Marty talked about the fact that we're not studying the proposed changes with respect to sanctions in the foreign affairs.... I believe that's correct, and I think it should be something we add there. Just in spending the last four or five meetings with the foreign affairs committee, I know they're working extremely hard, and the sanctions are a critical part of that.

In fact, in my own private member's bill, Bill C-281, we sought to give Parliament some say and some power with respect to the imposition of Magnitsky sanctions. Bill C-281 would give Parliament the ability to ask the government to report back to Parliament with respect to individuals who Parliament believes should be sanctioned but have not been. The Magnitsky sanctions have been, by nearly all accounts, underused in Canada. We're not seeking a full parliamentary or legislative trigger, as actually exists in many different countries around the world. All we're asking for is some additional transparency and for them to come back to the foreign affairs committee and report that.

I was very impressed with the level of expertise of many of the members of the foreign affairs committee, and I think that studying those changes in the foreign affairs committee makes a lot of sense, as we have some real experts. Of course, among them is Michael Chong, a parliamentarian renowned both for his ability to communicate and for his incredible level of knowledge on foreign affairs and everything relating to foreign affairs.

We have the various divisions—which I think is a good step for this committee—to divide up the budget for committees that have some greater expertise. Certainly, we all try to spend as much time as possible gaining knowledge and understanding in various fields, but when you look at this and you see an omnibus budget like this.... I know that the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party complained about omnibus bills when the Conservatives were in power, but they have everything but the kitchen sink in here.

Let me read off what's included here, just some of the areas that are included in this budget. We have the status of persons with disabilities, and skills and social development; citizenship and immigration; health; industry; national defence; government operations; natural resources; industry and technology; the environment; procedure; indigenous topics; and international trade. Those are just some of the topics covered in this massive omnibus budget.

I sincerely believe that it should be an obligation for all of us as parliamentarians to cover these subjects in the depth that they require. This will affect people's lives. This could have a significant effect on many Canadians. The least we should be doing as parliamentarians is ardently studying these important changes to the Canadian budget.

The next part, (f), calls for “recommendations in relation to the provisions considered by them be provided in the form of a letter to the Chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, in both official languages, no later than 12:00 p.m. on Thursday May 18, 2023”. That date is really coming up. As I said, we as Conservatives would like to work forward and just get to work so that we make sure we can get through this substantial amount of work and testimony as quickly as possible, and that, in the spirit of collaboration, we can get the maximum number of testimonies and conversations on the record. That way as many voices as possible can be heard.

Paragraph (g) says, “if a standing committee listed in (e) chooses not to consider the subject matter of the provisions, it advise the Chair of the committee by letter, in both official languages, no later than 4:00 p.m. on Friday, May 12, 2023.” I would hope that all committees would have the ability to study these important provisions, but other things could certainly get in the way of that.

The other part of this budget implementation act that is critical is the context that we are in right now in Canada. We're facing some significant economic headwinds, not the least of which is our productivity numbers, which are lagging behind other countries'. Our dollars earned per hour and GDP contribution per hour of work, in other words, are only $55. That's lower than in the United States. That's lower than in Ireland. That's lower than in Switzerland—considerably, I might add. There are countries blessed with far fewer resources than we are blessed with that are just, quite frankly, eating our lunch when it comes to productivity, innovation and capital investment. We need to get those issues solved.

One of the things that I want to ask officials and other witnesses is what in this budget will enable greater productivity. What in this budget will really put us on the map with respect to innovation?

We have, in my opinion, the smartest, hardest-working people in all the world right here in Canada. Unfortunately, we're not enabling them. We're not facilitating. We're not putting them in the position to maximize their potential. In fact, some of them are being scooped up and taken down to the United States or to countries in Europe where they can ply their trade.

I talked to one gentleman who is an absolute genius. He's already contributed to the creation of multi-million dollar and multi-billion dollar companies. He's an immigrant to Canada, loves Canada and is a supporter of our country. He is a terrific individual and human being. He said it was great news that he made those million-dollar and billion-dollar companies, but he said with great sadness that he had to do it in the United States. He just didn't have the support he needed in Canada to make that happen.

This is really a condemnation of this Liberal government's failure to put in place the framework that he knew we needed in order to succeed. We don't have to be just branch plants. Branch plants are great, and I certainly appreciate every single manufacturing job we can bring to Northumberland—Peterborough South, the greatest riding in all the world. We certainly appreciate that, but in addition to attracting manufacturing and services, there's no reason why we shouldn't have headquarters and R and D right here in Canada. We have great professors and we have great universities, but we're losing intellectual property.

Too often what happens is that ideas are generated here in Canada but are not commercialized here. What happens, if you can believe this—and this happens over and over and over again—is that ideas are generated at our great post-secondary education facilities and are created and generated by a great population of inventors and entrepreneurs, but then, because we don't have the intellectual property framework, because we're overly burdened when it comes to taxation and regulation and because we're not agile enough as an economy, those ideas leave our shores. Oftentimes people might go down to Silicon Valley, Europe or other places in the world where they can find a more supportive framework, a place where they believe they can turn their ideas into a product or service that will change the world and will make our world a better place.

The sad part, though, for Canadians is that those products and services, which were created in Canada by Canadians, are sold back to us at a premium. It's often that we're pushing aside some of the jobs that create the greatest amount of GDP per worker. That's one of the reasons why our GDP per worker lags behind that of the United States, among many other OECD countries. We're not capturing those ideas. We're not keeping some of those great jobs here in Canada.

The average is about $50 to $55. That's what the Canadian worker contributes to the GDP per hour. In clean Canadian energy, it's about $500. That's 10 times more. This Liberal government is doing everything it can to compromise, limit, reduce and eliminate clean Canadian energy from our economy, which will have a tremendous impact not just in Alberta or in Saskatchewan, where many of those resources are located.... Those resources fuel our economy. They are really a bright light in our economy.

While we struggle with our productivity per GDP per hour in many sectors, we don't struggle in Canadian energy. That's $500. Every hour a worker out in Alberta, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick or Newfoundland is working in the energy sector, they're contributing $500 to the GDP, whereas the average is $50. This is something we need to build on, not eliminate.

It's incredibly troubling when the government doesn't acknowledge the contribution of the great folks in Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Alberta, Saskatchewan and, of course, in my very own province of Ontario as well. In fact, they're compromising it. They're making it more difficult to get our product to market.

In the regulatory regime, we will have many critical minerals that will be important to the economy in the future. Whether it's lithium for batteries or other natural resources located in Canada, we need to do everything we can to encourage the development and extraction of those important minerals and get them out of the ground and into the market as quickly as possible, because without those critical minerals, we simply won't have the batteries needed for electric vehicles or other technologies. We need to make sure that we do it in a way that allows Canadians to get the benefit of it.

Some say too many ideas are just flying out of Canada. They are flowing out of the Canadian economy and growing without being of any benefit to Canadians in growing our prosperity.

I see that one of my colleagues wants to.... I feel like I'm hogging the floor here. Watching my son play hockey, I was amazed this year by his U-11 team and how well they shared the puck, so I will practise what I preach now and share the puck a bit with one of the other members.

Who's next on the list, Mr. Chair?

Human Rights

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

Madam Speaker, today is a good day for the cause of human rights in Canada. Bill C-281, the international human rights act, has passed in the foreign affairs committee.

Bill C-281 would help hold human rights violators accountable, raise awareness of prisoners of conscience, prevent genocidal regimes from broadcasting their propaganda on our airwaves, and it would help eliminate the vile cluster munitions from the face of the earth.

I would like to thank the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan for his friendship, his support and his leadership on this important legislation, and all members who worked collaboratively to get this back to the House.

However, our job is far from done. We are in a minority Parliament and there are no guarantees in a minority Parliament. That is why I call on all members of the House to work as hard as possible to get this important legislation passed as soon as possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Mr. Green, clause 2 of Bill C-281 amends the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act to add an obligation to publish a report outlining measures taken by the minister “to advance human rights internationally as part of Canada's foreign policy” and listing “the names and circumstances of the prisoners of conscience detained worldwide for whose release the Government of Canada is actively working.”

The amendment seeks to add a new obligation to the minister to develop and maintain a government-wide international human rights strategy. This is a new concept that was not envisioned in the bill when it was adopted 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 will rule the amendment inadmissible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Green.

However, I just wanted to point out that clause 5 of Bill C-281 amends the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act to prohibit a person from investing in an entity that has contravened certain provisions of the Act. The amendment seeks to remove the various exemptions provided for in section 11 of the act. This is a new concept not envisioned in the bill when it was adopted by the House at second reading and not related to the prohibition from investing in an entity that has contravened certain provisions of the act.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states this on page 770:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to 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 introduces a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

[Ashlyn Milligan]

Thank you very much.

I'll address deleting (c) first. That would eliminate concerns about the question of “certain projects”.

Again, I would probably want to double-check with my colleagues over at the Department of National Defence, in case there are any concerns on their end about their ability to work with companies that produce cluster munitions. On potential research and development on items that are not cluster munitions, I would like to double-check that with them.

The one comment I would make about.... If the proposed language amending clause 6 was rejected, it would raise some concerns about the original language proposed in Bill C-281, which doesn't focus clearly on intent. We think it is an important element under criminal law to prove that people invested with purpose, knowingly. Otherwise, the way Bill C-281 is currently drafted puts criminal liability on people who merely know that they have an investment, and that can happen at any time. It doesn't require that they have the intent to invest in—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Welcome to meeting number 61 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 virtually.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of 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 the choice of either floor, English or French audio. Those in the room can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I will 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 back before the committee officials who will be supporting our clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-281.

From the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, we're grateful to have back with us Ms. Ashlyn Milligan, deputy director, non-proliferation and disarmament, and Ms. Jennifer Keeling, acting executive director of human rights and indigenous affairs. In addition, from the Department of National Defence, we have Major-General Paul Prévost, director of staff, strategic joint staff.

Before we get into it, I might as well welcome a lot of new members who are here as substitutes today: MPs Kusie, Kelly, Brunelle-Duceppe, Green and Anandasangaree. We also have Mr. Bains, who is joining us virtually.

I will now open the floor in relation to clause 6, which was the next item for consideration when we adjourned debate on Tuesday, April 25. Please refer to version 8 of the package of amendments that was sent this morning to all members.

I have Mr. Lawrence.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you. It was sent around this morning by the clerk.

Our next meeting will be on Thursday, from 11 to one. We will return to consideration of clause-by-clause for Bill C-281.

Is it the will of the committee to adjourn?

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

I feel it's exactly the same in English. It's subjective, not absolute. However, I can ask the officials if there's a difference in interpretation, but maybe it's too hard to find an answer now.

Is there any difference between “significantly” and “meaningfully” for the purposes of enacting Bill C‑281?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Welcome to meeting number 60 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.

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

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

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

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, November 16, 2022, the committee now 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 (Sergei Magnitsky Law), the Broadcasting Act and the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act.

It is my pleasure to once again welcome officials who are here to support us as we consider clause-by-clause for Bill C-281.

From the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, we're grateful to once again have Ms. Ashlyn Milligan, deputy director, non-proliferation and disarmament. We also have Ms. Jennifer Keeling, acting executive director, human rights and indigenous affairs.

From the Department of Canadian Heritage, we're grateful to once again have Ms. Amy Awad, senior director, marketplace and legislative policy.

Finally, from the Department of National Defence, we have Major-General Paul Prévost, director of staff, strategic joint staff, who is kindly and graciously joining us via Zoom.

I will open the floor in relation to the subamendment to G-2, which was under consideration when we last adjourned debate, on Thursday, April 20, 2023.

Foreign Affairs and International Development

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 13th 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 (Sergei Magnitsky Law), the Broadcasting Act and the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act. The committee has studied the bill and pursuant to Standing Order 97.1(1) requests a 30-day extension to consider it.

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

I'm going to move a dilatory motion. Because I have the floor, I am going to move that we adjourn debate on Bill C-281 at this time. It's a motion to adjourn debate.

This is, so people know, so that I can extend.

Thank you. Sometimes he's helpful.

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

I think I have the floor from earlier.

The first thing I would do with the floor is move that we request of the House an extension of up to 30 days for consideration of Bill C-281.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Clause 4 of Bill C-281 amends the Broadcasting Act to add restrictions in relation to broadcasting licences to broadcasting undertakings subject to influence by a foreign national or entity that has committed acts or omissions that the Senate or the House of Commons has recognized as genocide or that is the subject of an order or regulation made under section 4 of the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act or section 4 of the Special Economic Measures Act.

The amendment provides for new understanding of what the term genocide is as a foreign state, or a national of, or a person in a foreign state that has been found to have committed genocide by a court or tribunal as specified in the amendment. The amendment also provides for mechanisms for the commission to determine what influence it is. These are new concepts not envisioned in the bill when it was adopted by the House at second reading.

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.”

In the opinion of the chair, and for the above-stated reason, the amendment introduces new concepts that are beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

Go ahead, Mr. Oliphant.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 59 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 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 do mute yourself 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 will 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 (Sergei Magnitsky Law), the Broadcasting Act and the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act.

It is now my pleasure to once again welcome our officials.

From the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, we have Ms. Marie-Josée Langlois, director general, strategic policy branch; Mr. Jeffrey Marder, executive director, human rights and indigenous affairs; and Ms. Ashlyn Milligan, acting executive director, non-proliferation, disarmament and space. As well, from the Department of Canadian Heritage, we have Ms. Amy Awad, senior director, marketplace and legislative policy.

I should also add that as of 12 o'clock we will have, from the Department of National Defence, Major-General Paul Prévost, director of staff, strategic joint staff, who will be joining us virtually by Zoom.

I will now open the floor in relation to amendment G-1.1, which was under consideration when we last adjourned on Tuesday, April 18, 2023.

(On clause 3)

I have Mr. Oliphant.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move, and this would be G-1.1 or G-1(a):

that Bill C-281, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 14 to 31 on page 2 with the following:

ister must table a response in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House of Commons or the rules of the Senate that apply to government responses to committee reports.

What we're attempting to do is to harmonize the way the government would respond to this committee so that it would respond as it would respond to any other report from this committee or to any other report from any other committee, so that there is some predictability. Also, as the Standing Orders evolve, which they do, we would simply always be in line with the Standing Orders, as opposed to having a stand-alone procedure that doesn't necessarily add to predictability or add to the good and strong functioning of the House of Commons or the Senate. That's why we are attempting to harmonize this with the other reports that would be made to the House of Commons.

[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.

Human Rights

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

Mr. Speaker, the next petition is also in support of a private member's bill, Bill C-281, which is currently before the foreign affairs committee.

Petitioners note the importance of Canada's standing up for the rights of ethnic, religious and other minority groups targeted by human rights violations around the world, and they see this bill as an important step and an important tool in that fight for greater Canadian engagement in international human rights. They want to see the House act quickly to adopt Bill C-281, the international human rights act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you very much.

On that note, I want to thank you, Mr. Neve, and to thank you, Madam Harth, for being here with us to speak on the issue of Bill C-281. We very much appreciate your time, your expertise and your perspectives. Thank you.

Members, we will be going in camera for committee business. Those of you who are joining us virtually can leave and then join us again through the hyperlink that was just emailed to you. Hopefully, we can do it in a couple of minutes.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

[Alex Neve]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Alex Neve, Senior Fellow, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thought you were going to suggest you would be taking a selfie of us or something.

It's a pleasure to be here with you as you look at this important legislation.

Since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights almost 75 years ago, states have developed an extensive range of standards, bodies and processes for protecting human rights internationally.

There are 18 core UN human rights treaties and option protocols. Ten expert committees oversee state compliance with those treaties. The UN Human Rights Council meets three times per year as well as has frequent special sessions. The council's universal periodic review process reviews the human rights record of every UN member state once every four and a half years. The council's special procedures system of 45 thematic- and 14 country-focused independent experts rigorously scrutinizes human rights challenges around the world. Independent commissions of inquiry established by the council conduct in-depth investigations of situations of widespread human rights violations around the world.

There is all of that, yet our world continues to face massive human rights challenges. Governments on every continent show contempt for the binding obligations they have assumed. Accountability and enforcement are weak, relying primarily on notions of good faith and self-interest.

Canada has played a key role in advancing much of that progress and is widely respected as an international human rights champion, but there is so much more we can and must do.

One side of that—not the focus of today's session—is that we absolutely must set a stronger example of effectively implementing our own international human rights obligations domestically. The other dimension is that, while Canadian governments speak about the importance of human rights in our foreign policy, we do not back that up with transparent and accountable commitments, plans and reporting to demonstrate concretely that human rights come first for Canada on the world stage.

Bill C-281 takes a step in that direction on two fronts: an annual report outlining measures the government takes to advance international human rights and a list of prisoners of conscience for whose release Canada is advocating. I believe these two proposals can and should go further.

With respect to the first, an annual report that is not grounded in a strong foundational framework will, I fear, come up short. That is why advocates have called on Canada for many years to adopt a whole-of-government international human rights action plan developed on the basis of consultations with civil society and indigenous peoples' organizations, updated on a regular basis and subject to annual progress reports, which are reviewed by Parliament and released publicly.

I would suggest an amendment to Bill C-281 to require the development of just such an action plan and reporting processes of that nature.

With respect to the second provision, there are a number of considerations to keep in mind. Let me highlight just two.

First, “prisoners of conscience”—a powerful term that comes out of decades of campaigning by Amnesty International—is, nevertheless, not defined in law. There are many unjustly detained prisoners whose situations may well fall outside of that term, such as individuals facing torture, disappearances or the death penalty. I would suggest instead that the focus be on individuals who are detained or facing other treatment that contravenes international human rights obligations.

Second, there are several strategic considerations related to publicizing prisoner lists. While we do absolutely need more transparency and accountability, there are also legitimate reasons for caution and confidentiality. Some prisoners' situations may benefit from publicity and others may not. I worry about the message that may be conveyed if a case doesn't appear on the list, whatever the reason for that may be.

Having been involved over many decades in efforts to encourage Canadian diplomacy with respect to prisoner cases, including of Canadian citizens who are unjustly imprisoned abroad, a more pressing concern for me has been the failure and even refusal to provide meaningful information to family members, lawyers and civil society groups actively engaged on particular cases.

Instead of focusing only on a public list of prisoners' names, I would urge that Bill C-281 be amended to mandate the development of a clear strategy for Canadian government diplomacy on prisoner cases, perhaps to be included in the international human rights action plan, that incorporates the following standards. One would be to ensure consistency, including with respect to public advocacy. Two would be for stronger engagement with families, lawyers and civil society working on prisoner cases. Three would be to guide public reporting of the government's efforts, including the numbers of cases taken up, activities undertaken and the human rights concerns involved.

Thank you. Those are my comments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Welcome back, everyone.

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 (Sergei Magnitsky Law), the Broadcasting Act and the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act.

Now it's my great pleasure to welcome our two esteemed panellists.

First, we have Mr. Alex Neve, who, as you all know, is the senior fellow at the graduate school of public and international affairs at the University of Ottawa. We also have with us, from the foundation of Safeguard Defenders, Ms. Laura Harth, who is the campaign director. She was here last week as well, appearing as a witness before another committee.

We're very grateful to have you both.

First, we will start off with opening remarks by each of you, which will be followed by questions from the members. You will each have five minutes. Once you're very close to the end of your time slot, I will hold this up and I would be grateful if you wrapped up your replies or comments as soon as possible.

Given that you are here in person, Mr. Neve, the floor is yours. You have five minutes.

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

Madam Speaker, the second petition is in support of my colleague from Northumberland—Peterborough South's Bill C-281, the international human rights act.

Petitioners note the importance of Canada's defending human rights and adjusting legislation to ensure the government is accountable to Parliament in the ongoing fight for justice and human rights. Petitioners call on the House to quickly adopt Bill C-281, the international human rights act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

If that is the will, then in the context of Bill C-281, would it be okay with everyone that the deadline for the submission of amendments to the clerk of the committee be no later than 5 p.m. on Wednesday, April 12, 2023?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you very much.

As proposed in the calendar sent to everyone on February 24, is it the will of the committee to do the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-281 on Tuesday, April 18, 2023?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

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

At this point, allow me to thank Ms. Awad, Ms. Langlois, Ms. Hulan, Mr. Marder and Ms. Liao-Moroz. We are very grateful for your guidance and for your insights.

Before we actually do adjourn, I have a few very quick housekeeping matters.

First of all, the budget for consideration of Bill C-281 was sent to all members on March 20, 2023. That would have been Monday. Is it the will of the committee to adopt that budget?

[Angelica Liao-Moroz]

Thank you for the question.

You refer to the text of the amendment that talks about pecuniary or monetary interests. I would just add to what has already been said. Our understanding, based on legal advice in the department, is that Bill C-281, as it's currently worded, would expand the criminal liability beyond the scope of what's currently already prohibited in the language of “aiding and abetting”.

As an example, it could be considered a crime, with the current wording of the amendment, if an investment was made in a company that no longer produces cluster munitions but somebody had previously invested in that company, the legal assessment that our department has is that the individual could potentially be criminally liable, even though there may not have been the intent.

The intent is the key part of it. That's a really important element, and we look forward to the committee's further study of that and how we can work to have workable language.

If there are further questions in terms of what would constitute a criminal offence, we would have to circle back to you with an answer once we have further legal advice.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Bill C‑281, among other things, seeks to prohibit any person from having a pecuniary interest, directly or indirectly, as a shareholder, partner, or lender, in a business that has violated the prohibitions of the act or has aided or encouraged another person to violate the prohibitions of the act.

So you would legislate to penalize any person having direct or indirect interests in a business which manufactures cluster munitions. Yet is there not a risk that Canadians may have unknowingly invested in such a business and would then be targeted by the provisions of the bill?

Would it not be preferable to use New Zealand's legislation as a model? It focuses on the intent rather than on shareholders or participants having a direct or indirect financial interest in a business which manufactures cluster munitions.

[Heidi Hulan, Assistant Deputy Minister and Political Director, International Security and Political Affairs, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon.

I thank the chair for inviting my colleagues and me to discuss private member's bill C-281, which makes amendments to the following four acts: the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, and the Broadcasting Act.

Canada's commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights has not wavered. To further demonstrate this commitment, today we will outline areas where the government could make improvements to the bill and we look forward to the upcoming discussion on opportunities to enhance Canada's existing toolkit to advance human rights.

To begin, this bill proposes two amendments to the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act. First, there are new reporting requirements for the Minister of Foreign Affairs on Canada's efforts to advance human rights. Second, it proposes that Global Affairs Canada publish a list of the names and circumstances of prisoners of conscience held around the world whose release the government is actively seeking.

We welcome the call for an annual report on Canada's engagement in human rights, which will demonstrate the breadth of Canada's activities to advance human rights internationally, including our support of human rights defenders worldwide. There are numerous ways for the department to deliver a substantive report that provides transparency while also ensuring that our approach to foreign relations remains agile.

The bill also proposes to publicize a list of names of prisoners of conscience. While there is no international or domestic legal definition for the term itself, Canada is actively engaged in support of human rights defenders around the world. Such engagement is premised on key principles, including do no harm and only take action on a particular case with the free, full and informed consent of the human rights defender in question.

Publicizing a list of names and circumstances of human rights defenders where there is Canadian engagement cannot guarantee that these principles will be respected. Importantly, it would risk impeding diplomatic actions and could endanger the safety of the individuals concerned. That said, an annual report will give the opportunity to present Canada's broad engagement in support of human rights defenders.

Turning to Bill C-281's amendment to the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, this amendment requires the Minister of Foreign Affairs to respond, within 40 days, to reports submitted by parliamentary committees that recommend sanctions be imposed against a foreign national, with the response subsequently published online.

We note Bill C-281's proposed 40-day response period is an entirely new reporting requirement for the minister, and it is not aligned with the existing standard practice for government responses, which is 120 days for the House of Commons and 150 days for the Senate, as is known better by people in this room than by us. We assess that the limited time frame associated with this proposal could impact the current rigour and judiciousness of Canada's approach to the imposition of sanctions. It presupposes Governor in Council approval, and it also risks the sanctions becoming ineffective.

Given these risks, our recommendation is to modify the proposal to instead require the acknowledgement and consideration of the committee's recommendation, but otherwise to align with standard practices and due diligence processes. We believe these amendments would respect the overall intent of Bill C-281.

Turning now to Bill C-281's amendments to the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, we welcome the proposal to place prohibitions on direct investments, as it makes it explicitly clear that it is illegal for Canadians to make direct investments in cluster munitions and the industry. Canada is already fully compliant with the Convention on Cluster Munitions through our implementation of the PCMA, and these amendments further demonstrate Canada's commitment to eliminating these deadly and indiscriminate weapons.

Bill C-281 also introduces prohibitions on indirect investments. While this amendment is clearly well-intentioned, it poses a challenge to enforcement because it potentially criminalizes indirect investors, such as holders of pensions and retirement funds, who may be unaware of what investments they hold. Focusing the amendments in Bill C-281 exclusively on direct investments would ensure that the bill is enforceable and clear to Canadians, while contributing to a world free from cluster munitions.

Finally, with regard to the Broadcasting Act, Bill C-281 amends the Broadcasting Act by prohibiting the issuance, amendment or renewal of broadcasting licences to broadcasters who are “vulnerable to being influenced” by particular foreign nationals or entities of concern, including those who the House of Commons have determined committed genocide.

The bill's approach includes language that is overly broad, restricts the regulator's ability to find solutions and links the determination of genocide to a political statement rather than a legal determination.

By refocusing the language of Bill C-281, Parliament has an opportunity to strengthen and protect the integrity of our broadcasting system. To do this, we suggest better defining the relationship between the broadcasters and foreign entities, linking the determination of genocide to decisions by domestic or international tribunals and removing the prohibition on licence amendments, which can allow regulators to reduce the potential influence of a bad actor while maintaining the prohibition on the issuance and renewal of licences.

In concluding my statement, I would just like to note that we have taken good note of the strong cross-party support that this bill enjoys and that the issue of human rights enjoys. Let me say that, for the men and women of the Canadian foreign service who are defending human rights around the world, the existence of strong cross-party support in our Parliament for human rights gives us enormous legitimacy for that work.

That brings me to the end of my opening statement. We're at the committee's disposal to answer any questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Welcome back, everyone.

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 great pleasure to welcome to the committee five different officials.

First of all, from Global Affairs Canada, we have Ms. Heidi Hulan, assistant deputy minister, international security; Ms. Marie-Josée Langlois, director general, strategic policy branch; Ms. Angelica Liao-Moroz, executive director, non-proliferation, disarmament and space; and Mr. Jeffrey Marder, executive director, human rights and indigenous affairs. It's also our great pleasure to have with us today Ms. Amy Awad, senior director, marketplace and legislative policy, Department of Canadian Heritage.

Ms. Hulan, I understand you will be giving a 10-minute statement on behalf of all the officials who are appearing before us.

The floor is yours, Ms. Hulan. You have 10 minutes.

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

Thank you very much. I am on the equally productive and busy finance committee, but it's somewhat different, so my apologies if I talk too much about numbers.

It's an incredible honour to be in front of the foreign affairs committee today to discuss my bill. As previously mentioned, it is 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—often known as the Sergei Magnitsky act—the Broadcasting Act and the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act.

This bill is an omnibus human rights bill that's designed to build consensus in areas of obvious need of reform. We'll go through four different areas in which these reforms were made.

To begin with, I think it's right to point out, especially during some difficult times for our democracy recently, that Canada can be, and has been, a beacon for what is right in the world when it comes to human rights and other issues. We have the benefit of a culture that values life, that values human rights and that values respect for one another. For my part, I am extremely proud to call myself a Canadian and to be a representative of the Canadian government.

That is exactly why I have put this legislation in front of the committee and in front of Parliament. I believe this legislation would assist us not only in building Canada's reputation but also in subsequent efforts to improve the world, even if it's just in small ways.

We'll go through it line by line, but I must briefly comment that this has been a tremendous experience for me personally. In the process of creating this law, I've had the opportunity to work with great MPs from around the table, from all parties.

I have had the tremendous privilege to talk to stakeholders from the human rights community who are doing such valuable work to protect the most vulnerable in the world and to hold to account the people who commit the most vile atrocities around the world.

A big thank you goes to everyone who has helped to bring us to this stage, and I look forward to, as it has been throughout in the House of Commons and otherwise, a productive, substantive discussion about Canada's role in the world, specifically with respect to these four provisions.

The first amendment imposes a reporting requirement on the Department of Foreign Affairs in relation to international human rights. Specifically of key importance is publishing the names of prisoners of conscience whom the government is working to release and making Canadians and the public aware of them.

This was a subject of some debate and some questions in the House. I've had the privilege, once again, of talking to family members of individuals who are being held around the world simply because of their religious views, who they are, their status or their political views. I've heard a full-throated cheer for this section. They believe, as I do, that transparency is the best disinfectant.

When there are people who are committing atrocities, they need to be held accountable. We can become aware of some of the difficult times that people are having and the difficult positions that people are in around the world—people just like us, who are fighting for freedom, fighting for LGBTQ rights and fighting for democracy. They need to be supported and they simply cannot be left in the darkness as a remnant of international discussions or of trade discussions. They must take the spotlight, as these are, in many cases, great people fighting for freedom around the world.

The second one is with respect to the Magnitsky act. The Magnitsky act is a powerful piece of legislation that, if I can be so bold, has not, in recent years, been used to its maximum advantage. The Magnitsky act is, of course, named after Sergei Magnitsky, who was one of the first people to attempt to hold Vladimir Putin to account.

The Magnitsky act attempts to impose sanctions on those who are the most heinous violators of human rights. Unfortunately, in recent years, for whatever reasons, these sanctions have not been used to their full advantage. That calls for the government to report back to Parliament on the reason it is not imposing certain sanctions.

The third section is with respect to the Broadcasting Act. It seeks to restrict the ability of genocidal states to use Canadian airwaves to broadcast their propaganda.

The fourth and final amendment aims to strengthen the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act. It seeks to defund companies that are in the process of manufacturing and producing cluster munitions. Cluster munitions, of course, are really not even effective war tools. They're in fact just tools of terror that inflict many needless casualties and injuries to the civilian population, in many cases children.

I thank you for your time, I thank you for your consideration and I thank you already for the productive discussion we will have. I believe the bill is great in its own current form; that being said, I'm open to any amendment or discussion that will make the bill better.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 55 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. Please mute yourself when you are not speaking.

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

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, November 16, 2022, the committee commences 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 honour to welcome the sponsor of this bill, MP Philip Lawrence, the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South.

I suspect you're familiar with how we do these things. You will be provided five minutes, after which we will open it to questions from the members.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you.

With respect to Bill C-281 and consideration of that particular bill, is it the will of the committee to submit their witness lists by this Friday at 5 p.m.?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Yes, it's a brief one.

My colleague MP Philip Lawrence indicated that he was asked to appear today on his private member's bill, Bill C-281, and was disappointed that he couldn't do that today. I wanted to convey that to you, Mr. Chair, and that he would like the committee to review his bill at some point, so it can be reported back to the House earlier, rather than later.

I'm conveying that information to you. Thank you.

Foreign Affairs and International Development

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

Madam Speaker, if the member wants to take it in a partisan direction, as he clearly does, I will just say that for this Prime Minister, who clearly loves photo ops, this would be a case where a meeting and a photo would actually be quite meaningful. I would encourage the Prime Minister to take that opportunity, which is one that, as far as I know, he has not taken at any point during his premiership.

However, there are other steps the Prime Minister should take. He should endorse the middle-way approach. He should vote in favour of this motion. The government should bring forward legislation on reciprocal access to Tibet, modelled after bipartisan initiatives along these lines in the United States. The government should take action to protect victims of forced labour that we are seeing targeted at Uighurs, but I believe there is also forced labour that happens in Tibet. The government should make clear statements with respect to religious freedom in Tibet.

The government should adopt a similar framework to that contemplated by a new bill in the United States that would affirm Tibet's history and Tibetans' identity as a distinct people. The government should take real action on forced labour, again modelled after the bipartisan Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act in the United States. The government should adopt Bill C-281, the international human rights act. It should use the Magnitsky act to target officials who are involved in gross human rights violations in Tibet.

There are many concrete actions the Government of Canada can and should take. I have no doubt that, regardless of them, we will hear members like this one stand up and say “Oh, the government is great.” I guess that is his job. However, constructively, there are specific actions the government could be taking around Magnitsky sanctions, around reciprocal access and around religious freedom that the government has not taken and should take as soon as possible.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member could have done a bit more research regarding the record of the previous government when it came supporting Tibet. Many important steps were taken in regard to engagement with and support for Tibet. One of them was the former prime minister hosting and meeting with the Dalai Lama. In a constructive spirit, if the current Prime Minister of Canada would be prepared to take that step, I think that would certainly send a positive message.

The Government of Canada should be clear and vocal in its support for the middle way. I am hopeful that this motion we put forward on a number of occasions will pass now and that the House will clearly pronounce that these are important steps forward. There are many other steps the government needs to take. I suggest applying Magnitsky sanctions to officials involved in the violation of human rights in Tibet and supporting Bill C-281, which is the international human rights act.

Criminal Code

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

Madam Speaker, this bill would create a mechanism by which those involved with forced organ harvesting and trafficking would be inadmissible to Canada.

In terms of broader sanctions, Magnitsky-style sanctions, it is important that we also pass Bill C-281, which would create a mechanism through which a parliamentary committee could recommend people for Magnitsky sanctions. That would help us move forward to ensure that more people involved in these kinds of human rights violations are put on the sanctions list.

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

, seconded by the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard, moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be speaking today to Bill S-223, the next, and hopefully the last, in a long line of bills that have been proposed here and in the other place to begin the fight against the horrific practice of forced organ harvesting and trafficking.

I want to thank the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard for seconding the bill and recognize the incredible work done by Senator Ataullahjan as well, who proposed the bill. I have the honour of carrying that work on in this place.

The bill would make it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad and receive an organ taken without consent. Bill S-223 would also create a mechanism by which a person could be deemed inadmissible to Canada for involvement in forced organ harvesting and trafficking. The bill recognizes the basic moral principle that killing people or exploiting them for their organs is wrong everywhere and should be stopped everywhere.

Efforts to combat this practice have been ongoing in Canada's Parliament for close to 15 years, and the time that has elapsed underlines the sad reality of how long it takes to pass good private members' bills, even when everyone agrees. However, Bill S-223 has now made it further than any of its predecessors. Having passed the Senate and now been reported back from committee without amendments, the bill only needs to complete this third reading stage and receive royal assent before becoming law. Thanks to the member for Bow River trading with me today and the member for Simcoe North trading the second hour slot on Wednesday, the bill will complete debate this week and should pass its final vote in time for Christmas.

In the past I have always given uncharacteristically short speeches on the bill, trying to engineer an early collapse to debate to move the bill along more quickly. However, given that we now have the security of a second hour for debate lined up and a tight time line to move forward in any event, I will use the opportunity to now, for the first time, to lay out my views on this subject in the level of detail that the full time allows.

The bill responds to one particularly egregious human rights violation, but it would also take an important step toward the embracing of a vital principle of human rights more broadly; that is, the idea of the universality of human rights and of the responsibility of nations to prudentially use the means at their disposal to protect fundamental human rights, not only within their own nations but for every human being in every corner of the globe.

Bill S-223 would apply criminal prohibitions against organ harvesting and trafficking beyond Canada's borders. It recognizes that organ harvesting and trafficking is not just wrong in Canada as a result of particularly Canadian values or a particularly Canadian social contract. Rather, it recognizes that organ harvesting and trafficking is wrong because it denies the universal principle of inherent human dignity and value, a principle that should be understood and applied universally. In this sense, the bill seeks to continue the process of innovation around the principle of national sovereignty that began in 1948 with the promulgation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Today, I would like to make the case for the importance of embracing this continuing process of innovation, though with appropriate balance and with necessary parameters.

The principle of national sovereignty comes most sharply from Peace of Westphalia, which ended 30 years of war in the Holy Roman Empire in 1648. National sovereignty emerged as a necessary practical compromise from the new reality created by the Protestant Reformation. Prior to the Reformation, western Europe had a kind of moral and religious unity, with the Pope as spiritual leader and the Emperor as a temporal ruler whose practical jurisdiction varied from place to place, but who expressed a kind civilizational unity of the western Christian world.

The Reformation ended that unity and led to generations of wars, with most of the Catholic powers struggling to restore that civilizational unity and with the Protestant powers, with the periodic help of France, seeking to break the power of the Pope and Emperor and create a reality in which nation states could be their own authority in most areas. The Peace of Westphalia, more from exhaustion than decisive victory, marked the end of this period of religious wars and the beginning of the period of nation states.

Notably, this was not the beginning of some great flowering of individual freedom, liberty and human rights. The division of Europe into blocs meant that Catholics were persecuted in Protestant nations just as Protestants were persecuted in Catholic nations, and later as Catholics were brutally persecuted in anti-religious revolutionary France. Westphalia was not about saying that individuals could believe and do what they liked; it was “cuius regio, eius religio”, the religion of the ruler shall be the religion of the state. Under these circumstances, religious persecution continued for hundreds of years, and nations, though less inclined to fight wars over religion, fought wars that reflected the aspirations of rulers, no longer checked or mediated by super-national structures that reflected civilizational unity.

The 18th and 19th centuries saw the rise of new universalist movements. The French Revolution and later Marxism were great threats to existing structures and ideas of national sovereignty, because they made universal claims about the kinds of power structures that should exist, instead of accepting the Westphalian idea that it was up to the local political authorities to decide how a place would be governed.

These movements were obviously different, but a common thread can be discerned in the thinking of political universalists of both the pre-Reformation and the Revolutionary type. They believed that, insofar as there is such a thing as truth, insofar as there is such a thing as human nature and insofar as there is a resulting right and wrong way for a people to be governed, efforts should be made to apply these principles universally. There is intuitive logic to the idea that truth and justice for human beings in one place should be the same as truth and justice for human beings in another place.

There are more modern arguments made for the rejection of this kind of moral universalism that propose the general subjectivity of truth. I will comment more on these arguments later. For the time being, we should note that the emergence of national sovereignty as a principle in European politics did not arise from the rejection of absolute truth in religious and political matters. Rather, it arose from the practical recognition that such universals could not be practically enforced through warfare, at least not at any acceptable cost. The idea of national sovereignty was seen as a necessary political compromise to preserve some measure of peace and security.

It is hard to say how well national sovereignty actually worked at achieving its objectives. One can never test counterfactuals, but we can never know what would have happened in Europe if this piece of political technology had not been invented. Certainly, Europeans kept fighting wars of various kinds after 1648, but the return of the broadest and most devastating European wars tended to align with the emergence of new universalist ideologies.

Following the last of these total European wars, nations came together to try to shape a new kind of settlement. This included the formation of the United Nations in 1945 and also the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights exactly 300 hundred years after the signing of the Peace of Westphalia.

Many of history's human rights declarations, especially prior to 1948, were calls to arms or efforts to justify a violent revolution. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was radical insofar as it asserted the universality of various fundamental human rights, but it was also conservative in the sense that it was the project of nation states, within a framework that still recognized nationality with sovereignty, it did not legally bind the state signatories to actually uphold the rights therein, and, of course, it did not contain a call to armed enforcement by the people.

This provided a somewhat contradictory foundation, and international human rights law has continued to evolve and grow since 1948 on that foundation that recognizes both national sovereignty and universal human rights as being of great importance.

Notwithstanding the evident tension between these concepts, international diplomacy and law today recognizes that we cannot and ought not dispense with either. An absence of recognition of national sovereignty would lead to perpetual conflict between nations representing irreconcilable philosophical systems. This was the background prior to the Peace of Westphalia and a reality intermittently renewed by the rise of universalist revolutionary and totalitarian movements.

However, the absence of any limits on national sovereignty aimed at protecting universal human rights would create a reality in which we would look the other way when nations would commit the most dastardly crimes toward their own people. Any moral person who believes in justice and universal human dignity must, at a certain point, refuse to consent to allowing certain evils to be committed in the name of national sovereignty. Even if the only consideration is national sovereignty, history shows us clearly that nations that show capricious disregard for the rights of their own people quickly become a menace to their neighbours.

Recognizing the necessary tension between national sovereignty and international human rights, the approach of many nations has sadly been to talk the talk of international human rights, but not to put in practice meaningful mechanisms to enforce such rights.

The clearest example of this approach is the approach taken to the crime of genocide. Canada is a party to an international convention that seeks to define and make illegal the crime of genocide, regardless of assertions of national sovereignty. I strongly support this idea in principle and in practice. Slaughtering a group of people in an attempt to eradicate them is a horrific denial of universal human dignity of the person, and we should do what we can to prevent it. However, unfortunately, while assenting to the idea in principle that genocide should be an international crime, the Government of Canada has been reluctant to actually recognize any acts of genocide while they are progress. It claims that its obligation to act in response to genocide is triggered by a determination by some undefined competent international authority, even if such authorities are easily manipulated by the state committing genocide.

Additionally, this line from the government is fundamentally out of step with our actual legal obligations under the Genocide Convention. Our obligations, as a signatory to the convention, are to uphold that convention, which includes our responsibility to protect victims of genocide, regardless of national sovereignty and regardless of determinations by UN bodies. This is the legal obligation that we have assumed.

I also acknowledge the reality that it is not prudential to send in our troops in every case where genocide is happening. However, rather than burying our heads in the sand and denying the existence of genocide, the government could seek to clearly define the nature and also the limitations of how we would operationalize a responsibility to protect.

In my view, we need to develop real tools for practically integrating a commitment to universal human rights with a commitment to some form of national sovereignty. If an individual is involved in a violation of international human rights and if the nation state in which the person lives elects not to punish them or even condones their actions, national sovereignty limits our ability to punish this criminal. However, without resorting to means that are imprudent and likely to lead to even greater violence, we should still seek ways to punish those involved in human rights violations beyond our borders and thus deter criminals from committing these crimes.

Enter Bill S-223, a little bill with a big idea. It is the idea that we should use the means reasonably at our disposal to punish violations of fundamental human rights that happen beyond our borders. We could do this by punishing Canadians who are complicit in these acts of violence and by shunning foreigners who are involved in such violence. In light of the emergent reality of global connectivity, these kinds of limited tools are still meaningful and begin the process of deterring crime that happens beyond our borders.

It is a good thing that, if we agree it is always and everywhere wrong to do such and such a thing to a human being, we try to come up with some mechanism of accountability for these crimes that is prudent and that does not return us to the kind of world that existed between the Protestant Reformation and the Peace of Westphalia.

This idea of actively applying international human rights principles extraterritorially is about us doing what we can under the circumstances to advance justice. A commitment to this principle is why I have worked hard on this bill and also why I strongly support similar legislative mechanisms, such as the increasing use of Magnitsky sanctions, the adoption of Bill C-281, which is the international human rights act, and the adoption of Bill S-211. I support these legislative efforts to promote justice beyond our borders, because my children here in Canada are no more or less human than Uighur children, Rohingya children, the young nephew of my assistant who faces a hard winter in Ukraine or Kian Pirfalak, a nine-year-old boy who was murdered by police while attending a pro-freedom protest in Iran.

In conclusion, I want to return to a question I raised earlier: the case for universal moral claims in a world made up of diverse cultures and political traditions.

Every society since the dawn of time has tried to regulate itself with doctrines of something like morality. It is impossible for people to live together in a community if they do not regulate their interactions in some way. Furthermore, it is in our nature as beings to try to live rationally, to try to explain the decisions we make with reference to some good or goods.

However, while there has never been a society without some kind moral doctrines, and while those moral doctrines have sought to protect the lives and security of certain individuals, most societies have excluded certain groups or individuals from that protection. They have sought to protect an in-group without protecting an outgroup, seeking to narrow the definition of what it is to be human and perhaps allowing the exploitation of the outgroup for some advantage.

The core of my political philosophy is a simple commitment to universal humanism. It is the idea that we should not think in terms of in-group and outgroup when making decisions about fundamental human rights. If we are to speak authentically about human rights, then these are rights for all humans, regardless of age, environment, citizenship, skin colour or any other factor. Throughout history and still today, there are many who seek to limit the human family for their own convenience, but I believe that a person is a person.

Naturally there are certain kinds of rights that do flow from exchange. A worker has a right to wages. That is a right particular to the worker. A citizen has certain rights that accord with the obligations they have taken on to the nation in which they live. However, when we speak of human rights, these are rights that do not exist because of exchange. Rather, they are rights that flow from the universal nature of the human person.

Ideas of rights and justice are philosophical propositions that cannot be proven scientifically. All doctrines of human rights have their roots in something like faith: in the embrace of propositions that are not scientifically verifiable. However, the idea of universal human rights flowing from a universal humanness can be supported by observing how it accords with the universal aspirations of all people.

Today, as we speak, the people of China and the people of Iran are taking to the streets bravely demanding change. As we speak, incredibly, both of these totalitarian governments are at least feigning in the direction of concession. Also, the people of Ukraine have resisted and continue to heroically resist Putin's invasion, even as more and more Russians bravely express their own discontent.

I am proudly here today endorsing this universal movement for freedom and justice, to say that a person is a person no matter where they live and to say that we can and should prudentially work to affirm and give greater meaning to the idea of universal human rights.

The House resumed from November 14 consideration of the motion that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Extension of Sitting Hours and Conduct of Extended Proceedings

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, I completely agree that I have made mistakes; I am not without sin. I try to talk directly about those things. However, I would disagree with something very important the member opposite said. I have yet to meet a man or woman who stops making errors in sin. Is he that person in front of me? I do not think that is what he is saying, but I do think the fundamental lesson is whether we learn from that. It is not whether we make a mistake. It is whether we atone for that mistake, whether we are truthful about that mistake and whether we move forward.

Nothing exists other than the moment we are in right now and the conversation that I am having. I do not believe that I am coming across with grievance. If the member wants me to be more specific, let me talk to Bill C-281. The member for Northumberland—Peterborough South, who was just speaking, talked about his son, the type of world he wanted to have and why he was supporting the bill. I do not deny that those are his motivations. I do not deny that is what he is trying to do.

The member opposite can vociferously disagree with my approach, but surely he cannot disagree that, like him, I am a person of character trying to make a difference in the world and in this country. I know how hard it is to get elected. I know how difficult it is to be an MP. When we do not talk with compassion to one another, then people do not treat us with compassion. If they do not think we are hon. members, they will not listen to what we have to say.

International Human Rights Act

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

Madam Speaker, it has been said before that to accomplish something one needs the support of many others. Today, I rise on the shoulders of giants. Of course there was Sergei Magnitsky, who stood up bravely against corruption in Russia and was supported by Bill Browder, who has campaigned around the world to put these sanctions in place so that gross violators of human rights and corrupt officials cannot continue to operate with impunity.

I stand here on the shoulders of great members of Parliament, such as the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, who previously put forward a private member's bill and shepherded it through Parliament with unanimous support. I stand here beside a great colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, who has worked with me to draft and put together this legislation.

It is a true honour to be in the House every day, and it is a true honour to stand to carry this legacy further. This legislation is what Bill Brouder has pushed so far and so hard for. He in a recent editorial, he stated that he supports Bill C-281. We have heard that the NDP, the Liberal Party and the Bloc Québécois support Bill C-281.

More important than the support of our political parties and even of its originators is the support I felt when the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan and I had a town hall. We heard from survivors of incredible violence. Many of them were standing there when the rest of their families had been murdered by some of the most gross and heinous violators of human rights in the world. They stood there. They came there even with their own drama, one who had been a sex slave for over two years. They stood up and said to me, “We support your bill. We want it done. We want this legislation pushed forward. We don't want it watered down. We want it strengthened.”

While I am 100% open to any amendment that makes the bill better, I am not open to any that makes it weaker, not because of me, Irwin Cotler or Sergei Magnitsky, but because of the people who are suffering this moment, whether they are in Tehran or Kyiv. In our position of privilege and power, we owe it to them to stand up for them. If this small little part can do it, then that is a great thing.

In addition to being at that town hall, I had the opportunity to be at a protest against the terrible crimes that are being committed by the IRGC. I brought my son along with me, to honour the 41 children who have been lost in the recent protests in Iran. My son was there observing and hearing everything about the protests, their support and the people who were victims of these terrible human rights crimes. He heard that, and we walked off the stage together hand in hand. I felt more pride then than during any of my other accomplishments in the House of Commons. He leaned over to me and said, “Dad, when I get older, I want to be just like you. I want to fight for the good guys and hold the bad guys to account.” That was from my nine-year-old son. I have never been so proud.

My message to all of the parties in the House is this: Let us make all of our children proud. Some legislation is very nuanced, so we need to have depth of consultation in our conversations. We will study this one and try to make better, but as a concept it is very easy. It is good versus evil. It is right versus wrong. It is helping those who are helpless and who have no one to help them.

We need to stand up. We need to get this to the foreign affairs committee, get it studied, get to work and get it passed so we can hold those people who are committing some of the worst crimes in this world accountable.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to stand today to speak to Bill C-281, the international human rights act. I want to thank the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South for bringing forward this important piece of legislation, which would amend legislation I introduced in the House back in 2018, Bill S-226. My partner in crime in the Senate at that time was Senator Raynell Andreychuk, who worked very hard on that bill. She and I had had numerous meetings with the government, to the point where we had unanimous consent on the bill. The legislation we are debating today reintroduces some of the changes to the earlier iterations of Bill S-226.

We have to make sure everybody understands that we use Magnitsky sanctions to move in lockstep with our allies. When the parliamentary secretary says we want to have a coordinated response with our allies, our allies, whether it is the European Union, the United Kingdom, the United States or Australia, are all using Magnitsky sanctions. Unfortunately, the government has not used Magnitsky sanctions since 2018.

All the sanctions that have been brought against some of the corrupt foreign officials and gross human rights violators we are seeing today in the war in Ukraine, and what Russia has been doing with its kleptocracy, have all been under the Special Economic Measures Act. We know that act does not have the same teeth or accountability built into it as the Magnitsky law itself. Having Parliament provide a mechanism to put names on a list to present to the government through the foreign affairs committees of either the Senate or the House would provide more accountability, as well as debate and discussion as to why certain names should be added to the list.

I have worked with numerous communities for years to try to get more of these gross human rights violators and corrupt foreign officials on the list. We have submitted names to the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development and the Department of Justice, and none of those names have ended up on any sanctions list, either SEMA or the Magnitsky law. The Vietnamese community, the Cambodian community and Falun Gong practitioners have dozens of names of people proven to have committed gross human rights violations against citizens in those countries, yet the government sits idle.

Amending the Magnitsky act, as has been brought forward by my colleague from Northumberland—Peterborough South, would address that shortfall. It would allow communities and parliamentarians to come forward with names. Then, the ultimate accountability of the government would be to report back within 40 days as to why it is either taking action or not taking action. It would also file annual reports. The bigger goals are naming and shaming those committing gross human rights violations around the world.

We have to make sure we move forward with this legislation. I am glad we are getting to the point of probably having unanimous consent for sending this bill to committee, but I would say to my colleagues in the Liberal Party that, instead of trying to make a whole bunch of amendments to the bill at committee, they actually listen to the people who have suffered violations of their human rights because of corrupt foreign officials, the human rights violators who put their own ideology or wealth ahead of that of the citizens they are supposed to be serving.

We have to make sure we go back to using Magnitsky sanctions, just as our allies do, to ensure there is one declaration that these individuals have violated the human rights of their citizens, are corrupt, they are being held to account and cannot use Canada as a safe haven. I know the government has been apprehensive about using Magnitsky sanctions because it is required to report on financial institutions on a quarterly basis whether any of the names on the sanctions lists we have under Magnitsky are making use of our financial institutions to hide their wealth, or hiding their families here and taking advantage of our great universities. Those practices have to be monitored, and the best way to do that is through the amendments suggested in Bill C-281.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be back and to rise to debate this bill, which I feel is extremely important and particularly relevant, at a time when the world order is being turned upside down on a daily basis on all continents by a failure to respect fundamental human rights.

As parliamentarians in a G7 country, we want to take concrete action to ensure that those rights are respected in every corner of the world. We have a responsibility to take a leadership role on the world stage, particularly on this issue. To do that, we obviously need clear guidelines on what human rights represent for our democracy. We must also make it clear that corrupt foreign leaders are not welcome here, specifically by blocking any interference by nations whose objectives do not at all align with our common good. That must be part of our objectives, and I am pleased that the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South has taken the initiative to present concrete ways of achieving that.

As my colleague, the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, indicated earlier, the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of Bill C-281. I will remind members of a few points that explain why my party supports this initiative.

First, the text of this bill would amend section 10 of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act to impose what can be considered to be new, more modern standards concerning human rights around the world. The amendment to this section would therefore require the Minister of Foreign Affairs to publish an annual report summarizing the measures taken by the government to advance human rights internationally. The minister would also be required to publish an annual list to provide an overview of prisoners of conscience who are being held abroad and whose release is being sought. This would therefore be a much more transparent process that would help Canadians be better informed about their government’s actions abroad.

I would remind the House of what constitutes a prisoner of conscience. According to Amnesty International, a prisoner of conscience is “someone who has not used or advocated violence or hatred in the circumstances leading to their imprisonment but is imprisoned solely because of who they are”. This could include sexual orientation, ethnic, national or social origin, language, skin colour, sex, economic status or religious or political convictions, among others. A prisoner of conscience is therefore a person who is in prison not because of what they did, but simply for expressing their opinions or beliefs.

This is a painful reminder of a very specific case, that of Raif Badawi. I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the family of Raif Badawi, a prisoner of conscience who was incarcerated in 2012 by the Saudi regime for the crime of using his blog to advocate for a more open, liberal society in Saudi Arabia. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison, 1,000 lashes and a fine of one million Saudi riyals for criticizing the country's religious authorities. Although he was finally released in March, Mr. Badawi is still stuck in Saudi Arabia because he is not authorized to leave the country. He was banned from travelling for 10 years, banned from working in the media and forced to pay a $335,000 fine, which was part of his sentencing when he was convicted. It is an absolutely horrible situation that has been going on for far too long.

I commend the work of my colleague, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, who has been tirelessly advocating since his election in 2019 for the release of Raif Badawi and and his return to Canada. He has repeatedly asked the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship to use his discretionary power to give Raif Badawi Canadian citizenship. He even moved a motion here in the House, which passed unanimously in January. However, the government is still dragging its feet.

In this case, Quebec even paved the way for Raif Badawi to be exiled to Canada by putting him on a priority list of potential immigrants for humanitarian reasons. The federal government could do more today, but continues to refuse. That is why I believe that legislation to expand the power of the House, and therefore of parliamentarians, would be of great benefit and could have a significant impact on diplomatic efforts. I was concerned that the government would be somewhat reluctant, and that is unfortunately what I did hear in the previous speech.

With a stronger foreign affairs act, as proposed by Bill C-281, Canadians could have been better informed about what was happening to Mr. Badawi, and they could have asked their government to do more, if that was their wish, rather than relying on rumours or innuendoes for 10 years.

Bill C-281 would also amend the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act to require the Minister of Foreign Affairs to respond within 40 days to a report submitted by a parliamentary committee recommending that sanctions be imposed. The minister would also have to make public the decision made in relation to the committee report and set out the reasons for that decision.

I think it is an excellent idea, quite frankly. I know that important work is being done by all parliamentary committees, including the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. Since its creation, this subcommittee has studied human rights in a number of countries, including Iran, Cuba, China, Honduras, North Korea, Mexico, and many others.

This subcommittee studied the case of Sergei Magnitsky, whom the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Leaders Act, also known as the Sergei Magnitsky law, was named after. The story behind this legislation is worth sharing again.

I know that some colleagues have already gone over this, but I will take the liberty of doing it again. I was not here when Parliament passed this law, but I am sure many of my colleagues who were here remember it clearly.

British American multi-millionaire Bill Browder headed up a major foreign investment fund in Russia until his company became the target of one of the biggest frauds in modern Russian history. Expelled from Russia for calling out corruption, Mr. Browder handed over control of his company to his lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky. Shortly after Browder's departure, the police seized everything in his office and took possession of his company. Magnitsky discovered that the public officials behind the seizure received a $230‑million tax refund within just 24 hours. The fact that the money was spirited out of the country proved that the whole thing had been orchestrated by high-level individuals.

After exposing the scandal, Sergei Magnitsky ended up in a Moscow prison, where he was tortured for 358 days. Eventually, he died of untreated pancreatitis in 2009 at the age of 38. Russian authorities never conducted a thorough, independent, objective investigation into the detention, torture and death of Sergei Magnitsky. Those responsible were never brought to justice. After his death, an unprecedented posthumous trial was held, and he was sentenced in Russia for the fraud he himself had exposed.

Known as the “Magnitsky law” in memory of the Russian lawyer and thanks to Mr. Browder's work with parliamentarians in Canada and around the world, this legislation makes it possible to freeze financial assets and deny entry for foreign leaders and officials who have committed serious human rights violations.

Strengthening this legislation, as Bill C-281 does, and imposing reporting requirements on the Minister of Foreign Affairs are of vital importance to citizens, who often feel as if they are merely bystanders with little knowledge of foreign affairs issues that might affect them, directly or indirectly. This would be a welcome step forward.

The Broadcasting Act would also be amended to prohibit the issue, amendment or renewal of a licence in relation to a broadcasting undertaking that is vulnerable to being influenced by a foreign entity that has committed acts that the House, the Senate or both chambers have recognized as wrongdoing. This includes potential acts of genocide.

This is a significant change that would give parliamentarians a lot of power, again, but could make a real difference in the way some of us fight for human rights. I am again thinking about my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean, who has been fighting tooth and nail to get Canada to recognize the ongoing genocide of the Uighur people in China. He fought in vain to get the Beijing Olympic Games cancelled out of respect for the Uighurs who are suffering atrocities.

Finally, I want to comment on the change to the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act set out in Bill C‑281. It would expand the groups of people who are subject to restrictions under this legislation to include any person or corporation who may have a financial stake in a group or person who has committed, or aided or abetted a third party to commit, a reprehensible act under the current legislation.

On that note, I am pleased to say that Canada is finally adhering to the Convention on Cluster Munitions drafted in Dublin in 2008. Unfortunately, as we know, that is not the case for every country. The United States, Russia and China are among the few countries that have not ratified this agreement. This seems like a step in the right direction for a safer world, as does this bill as a whole, the principle of which has the full support of my party.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, advancing human rights is an integral part of the Government of Canada's multilateral engagement in our foreign policy, and as such it does not, as the previous member suggested, ever need to be pushed toward that work.

Around the world, we are increasingly seeing concerning trends with some authoritarian governments seeking to undermine international human rights norms, be it Russia, China or Iran, including the stifling of civil society and restricting the full enjoyment of the rights and freedoms of their people. Consequently, it is important to consider new opportunities to add to Canada's tool kit so as to better respond to emerging human rights crises and to advance the promotion and protection of human rights.

Therefore, we welcome the opportunity to discuss Bill C-281, which was presented to the House by the member of Parliament for Northumberland—Peterborough South. I personally thank him for his work on the bill. The bill introduces several amendments to four statutes in an effort to uphold Canada's commitment to human rights in a strong and meaningful way.

The government supports the intention of the bill and will support it at second reading, aiming to find ways to strengthen it to effectively add to Canada's robust tool kit and our approach to addressing human rights situations around the world. We will support it going to committee for a thorough review and study by committee members.

We welcome the opportunity to work with our colleagues on the other side of the House, as well as on this side of the House, on this important piece of legislation in an effort to strengthen the bill and to address certain aspects of the provisions that would hinder the bill's ability to achieve its objective under the law.

Canada's policies and initiatives to uphold human rights abroad, including support for human rights activists, get a lot of attention from parliamentarians, and so they should. The bill proposes new reporting requirements for the Minister of Foreign Affairs when it comes to Canada's efforts to advance human rights through our foreign policy.

We agree with the objective to better demonstrate Canada's engagement in the promotion and protection of human rights. However, as currently drafted, the bill's means of pursuing the objective as it relates to the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act is somewhat problematic. It would impose direct instruction to the minister from Parliament concerning the conduct of Canada's foreign relations, and that could have broader, unrelated and unintended implications and consequences for the conduct of foreign relations under the Crown prerogative.

Unlike most other acts concerning federal departments and agencies, the act does not confer powers or authorities on the minister, but rather the powers of the minister are found in the Crown prerogative, which is a long-standing, valid source of executive authority. It has a foundation in Canada's Constitution, and its scope and content have been shaped through judicial decisions.

The act purposefully refrains from limiting or displacing the prerogative as a source of executive authority over foreign relations. It also refrains from giving direct legislative instructions concerning the executive's order of Canada's foreign relations. Over the years, this approach has maintained the flexibility needed by the government, no matter which party is in power, to adequately manage and balance the complexities of foreign relations in an evolving world.

In order to respect the aim of the provisions of this bill, while protecting the government's ability to conduct foreign relations, we recommend the legislative reporting requirement be replaced by a strong policy statement on human rights in the House of Commons. This statement could commit to the development of a human rights report that speaks to the ways Canada advances respect for human rights abroad, including our efforts to support the vital work of human rights defenders.

Additionally, the bill calls for the minister to publish a list that sets out the names and circumstances of the prisoners of conscience detained worldwide for whose release the Government of Canada is actively working. I want to caution that this could very much endanger the safety of human rights defenders and in certain cases could cause them to lose their lives. For example, if a human rights defender is detained in a country with known reports of torture, publicizing the prisoner's circumstances could lead to retaliation from the government.

Moreover, since the amendment proposed in this bill is not limited to Canadian prisoners of conscience, making known any interest in people detained in their country of origin would damage our bilateral relations and undermine Canada's ability to provide support to such human rights defenders.

I recognize that during the previous debate on this bill this issue was raised, and the member of Parliament for Northumberland—Peterborough South stated he was supportive of amendments that would improve this bill. I look forward to working with him to ensure that we do not inadvertently endanger the lives of human rights defenders.

Sanctions are an important tool used by Canada to address human rights violations abroad. Bill C-281 would require the Minister of Foreign Affairs to respond within 40 days to a report submitted by a parliamentary committee recommending that sanctions be imposed upon a foreign national. The Government of Canada takes the imposition of sanctions very seriously and has used the Magnitsky act and the other acts for sanctions extremely judiciously but proactively. Evaluating the feasibility and appropriateness of pursuing sanctions in response to a specific situation requires thorough and significant due diligence under the acts that govern them, including consultation, policy and legal analysis.

The bill's proposed 40-day response period would be an entirely new reporting requirement for the minister and it conflicts with the standard practice for a government response to standing committees, which is 120 days for the House of Commons and 150 days for the Senate. Furthermore, it would presuppose cabinet and Governor in Council approval and risk the measures being made ineffective.

Publicly announcing sanctions before they enter into force would effectively notify the targeted individual and as a result allow them to rapidly move their assets outside of Canada, which no one in this House would want. Finally, a public announcement of this nature would make it more difficult for Canada to coordinate our sanctions with our allies. That would hamper our ability to make effective sanctions, which are always more effective if we do them with our allies.

We therefore recommend adjusting the minister's response so that it would acknowledge the committee's recommendation and commit to its consideration while ensuring that it aligns with current standard parliamentary response practices, protects Canada's judicious approach toward the imposition of sanctions and meets the objective and intention set out in the bill.

With respect to cluster munitions, they pose an immediate threat to individuals around the world who live in conflict and post-conflict zones. In 2015, Canada ratified the Convention on Cluster Munitions and is fully compliant with the treaty. Canada implements its obligations to the treaty through the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act.

We welcome the prohibitions to direct investments introduced in this bill, which would make it explicitly clear that it is illegal for Canadians to invest in cluster munitions. However, the bill's prohibition to indirect investments would pose challenges to enforcement, as it would potentially criminalize indirect investors, such as mutual fund holders, who may be unaware of what investments they hold.

The media play an important role in transmitting ideas, especially ideas about promoting human rights. The bill recognizes that important role by prohibiting the issue, amendment or renewal of a licence in relation to a broadcasting undertaking that is vulnerable to being influenced by certain foreign nationals or entities of concern. This includes those who have committed acts that the Senate or the House of Commons has recognized as genocide or that have been identified under the Sergei Magnitsky law.

Actions to protect the broadcasting system from influence are important, and we welcome the opportunity to add clarity through a thorough discussion at committee of this bill.

In closing, this bill is a forward-looking effort to strengthen Canada's engagement on human rights both at home and abroad. We thank the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South for his work, and we look forward to working with him at committee to strengthen it.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an immense honour for me to speak in support of Bill C-281, the international human rights act, and to recognize this as legislation that would bring together a number of important measures that advance human rights.

I want to recognize the work done by my colleague and friend from Northumberland—Peterborough South. We were together in Mississauga about a week ago doing a town hall on the legislation. It was really incredible to see a number of different communities represented at that event, and the diversity of experience that has driven people who want to see the legislation pass.

When I was first elected, I started sharing the story of my grandmother. My grandmother was a Holocaust survivor. Learning about her experience in Germany during the Second World War was a key motivator for me to get involved in international human rights work. I would share her stories and our family's experience with the different people I met. I would often hear people sharing their stories of other kinds of mass atrocities, genocides and persecutions that they or their families had experienced, which led them to come to Canada.

One of the things that is striking about our multiculturalism in Canada is that we have many people who have come to our country fleeing different kinds of persecutions, mass atrocities and genocide. Many of those have come as refugees. They carry with them the experience of trauma and violence against their families and their communities.

Those communities and those who are refugees or descendants of refugees have been a key motivator in pushing the House to do more when it comes to defending international human rights and putting forward some of the concrete ideas around this bill.

Right now, we see the horrific genocidal invasion of Ukraine happening. We see violent repression inside Russia against civil society, pro-democracy activists and others. We see the heroic freedom movement taking place in Iran. We see the worsening human rights situation in Sri Lanka. We have the Uighur genocide and other human rights abuses in China. There are many places with instances of human rights abuses.

This legislation does not name specific countries. It is not about addressing individual human rights issues as one-offs. It is about changing the framework with respect to the way the Government of Canada approaches human rights, putting in place a framework that will push the government to always prioritize human rights in its foreign policy. We need to do that not just today, but into the future. We need to do that not just in relation to particular hot spots we see, but do that, in general, in every case.

The bill is called the international human rights act. A key aspect of it that relates to most of its provisions is accountability. This is legislation that would establish accountability around human rights in two principle ways. It would force the Government of Canada to be more accountable to Parliament and the parliamentary committees when it comes to human rights. It also seeks to hold perpetrators of human rights violations accountable for their actions.

Let us start by talking about the aspect of holding the government accountable. Do I have criticisms of the government of the day's approach to human rights? Yes, I do, but the legislation is not just about the government today. It is about establishing a framework whereby any government of Canada in the future would be more accountable to Parliament when it comes to fulfilling its obligations on human rights. It would apply to future Conservative governments. It would apply to any government, that human rights should be a central part of our approach to foreign policy.

The bill would require the Government of Canada to table an annual report of the work it is doing on advancing human rights. This would be a way of clearly signalling what work the government is doing and maybe give parliamentarians an opportunity to identify absences and things the government should be doing, but is not doing. This is a powerful accountability mechanism. It is a jumping-off point for raising questions, pointing out gaps and asking the government to do more in certain respects.

The legislation also calls for that report to specifically identify prisoners of conscience, individuals who are detained around the world, who should not be detained and who Canada is advocating for their release.

There has been some debate in this opening section of the bill. Is the requirement to list prisoners of conscience appropriate? Are there cases where the government might not want to publicly list prisoners of conscience because, in some cases, private advocacy would be more effective by not naming someone publicly?

First, I know the member who is sponsoring the bill, and those of us Conservatives who are on the foreign affairs committee, will certainly be open to a discussion around reasonable amendments and hearing from witnesses as to how to strengthen aspects of the legislation. However, any exception to the public naming of prisoners of conscience should be clearly circumscribed and sufficiently narrow. What we hear overwhelmingly from family members and advocates of people who have been detained is that bringing more attention to these cases is virtually always helpful. When we say the names, when we talk about Huseyin Celil for example, when we bring more attention to these cases, their families and advocates want us to do that. They want us to highlight the fact that they are arbitrarily detained to ensure they are not forgotten. Through saying their names, by speaking out about their cases and calling for their release, we bring more attention and more pressure to that call.

Might there be exceptions? Sure. As a committee, we should talk about how to refine those cases, but there should not be carte blanche for the government to not list names maybe for some strategic foreign policy reason. We want to be bringing as much attention to these instances of arbitrary detention as possible. What we have heard from civil society is that bringing attention to these cases of arbitrary detention is helpful to those prisoners of conscience.

With respect to the international human rights act, accountability is a key part of it. One aspect of that accountability is holding the Government of Canada accountable. It has to publish this report and identify the prisoners of conscience for whose release it is advocating. It would allow us to ask questions about why this or that name is not on the list as well as suggest names that maybe should have been on that list, hoping that they are added in subsequent years, and to increase the work the Government of Canada is doing, specifically to advocate for the release of people who are wrongfully detained.

Another aspect of the accountability piece is an amendment to the Magnitsky act. I recognize the great work done in passing the Magnitsky act. It was introduced by my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman. It was passed unanimously in the House. In fact, Canada was the first country to adopt Magnitsky sanctions legislation. We have also seen it adopted around the world.

The challenge with the Magnitsky act is that it gives a tool to the government with respect to sanctioning human rights abusers, but the tool is only as good as its use. If we, as a legislature, empower the government, as we have, with the ability to impose Magnitsky sanctions but it does not actually sanction people who are abusing human rights then we have not used that tool and it has not had the desired effect.

The fact is that there are many countries with significant human rights problems where the government has sanctioned no one and therefore there is a vital need for us to use the Magnitsky act more. That is why we are introducing with this legislation a parliamentary trigger, a mechanism whereby if a parliamentary committee passes a motion to call on the government to sanction someone, the government would have to provide a response within 40 days or another timeline prescribed by the committee. It still leaves the government with the discretion around who to sanction, which is fair enough, because it will have access to information that the House does not have. Ultimately, it is the government's responsibility to make these kinds of decisions, but we want a mechanism that requires more accountability and puts more pressure on the government to actually use the Magnitsky sanctions, something it has been reluctant to do. This accountability would push the Government of Canada to do more with respect to human rights.

Also, applying Magnitsky sanctions is about holding the perpetrators of human rights violations accountable. When there are human rights violations, Magnitsky sanctions are a way of saying to the perpetrators of those abuses that they cannot travel to or move their money to Canada. Hopefully, if countries work in concert to apply Magnitsky sanctions, it would be a significant deterrent for the human rights abusers who potentially want an escape valve from the authoritarian regimes of which they are a part.

It is a powerful coincidence that the day this bill is coming to a vote at second reading is the anniversary of the death of Sergei Magnitsky. I hope we honour his memory and the memories of all the victims of human rights violations around the world by passing the bill, bringing it to committee, studying it further and certainly looking for ways to improve and strengthen it. With this legislation we can position Canada's foreign policy, not just in this Parliament but for generations to come, so Canada can be a leader in human rights and can follow through with exactly what those communities and the people we have been meeting with across the country want us to do.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to such important subjects as human rights and the track record of this government, this country, in that regard.

Bill C‑281 is a private member's bill that was introduced by the Conservative member for Northumberland—Peterborough South. It is currently at second reading stage. Its long title, which is a bit complex, is an act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, or Sergei Magnitsky law, the Broadcasting Act and the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act. Given its title, we see that Bill C‑281 addresses some very distinct issues and makes significant amendments to a number of bills.

I want to begin by saying that the Bloc Québécois will support this bill, which we definitely think is important, particularly when it comes to human rights.

Bill C‑281 aims to increase the federal government's transparency and accountability when it comes to human rights. It does this in several ways. First, it proposes to “impose certain reporting requirements on the Minister of Foreign Affairs in relation to international human rights.” Second, it “amends the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act”, also know as the Sergei Magnitsky law. Third, it would “prohibit the issue, amendment or renewal of a licence in relation to a broadcasting undertaking” that is influenced by an entity that has committed crimes against humanity, such as genocide. Fourth, it “amends the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act to prohibit a person from investing in an entity that has contravened certain provisions of the Act”.

Given the scope of the bill, I would like to focus my speech on the second area, namely, amending the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, which is known as the Magnitsky law.

The story behind this act is particularly tragic and interesting. Sergei Magnitsky was a Moscow lawyer and he revealed the largest tax fraud in Russian history. This was a fraud that allegedly benefited President Putin personally. The whistle-blower was imprisoned and tortured for nearly a year and he died as a result of this abuse on November 16, 2009. No credible investigation has been conducted by Russian authorities into Sergei Magnitsky's detention, torture and death, and the individuals responsible have never been brought to justice.

In what can only be described as a ludicrous twist, the Russian state held a posthumous trial in which Magnitsky was found guilty of the fraud that he had himself exposed to the entire world.

In subsequent years, the United States, the European Parliament, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Italy and Poland all passed laws and motions condemning the poor treatment suffered by the Russian whistle-blower. In 2017, Canada followed suit by enacting its own Magnitsky law. This law essentially provides for restrictive measures against foreigners who are responsible for serious violations of internationally recognized human rights.

One relevant amendment that Bill C‑281 makes to the Magnitsky law is that it would “require the Minister of Foreign Affairs to respond within 40 days”, or within any other time limit set by committee, “to a report submitted by a parliamentary committee that recommends that sanctions be imposed under that Act against a foreign national.” The minister's reply should be made public. It should also respond to the committee's recommendations and indicate whether an order or regulation will be made and explain the reasons for the decision. In short, Bill C‑281 proposes to increase the government's transparency and accountability regarding its decisions whenever invoking the Magnitsky law.

For example, let us imagine learning the identities of the Iranian officials directly involved in the arrest, torture and murder of young Mahsa Amini. Let us imagine learning that some of those officials, those executioners, have assets in Canada such as land holdings, assets, bank accounts and so on. This law would allow a parliamentary committee to recommend freezing the assets of these individuals and to ask that the government respond to that recommendation within, say, two weeks.

This bill would require that the Minister of Foreign Affairs provide a full and public response to the recommendation within a given time frame. In this case involving Iran, I have no doubt that it would take the necessary enforcement actions. After all, the elected members of this House have on more than one occasion expressed their support for the case of Mahsa Amini and condemned the Iranian regime for that crime. I think the results of the bill would be obvious.

However, there are instances where we know very well that government may not want to take a stand on a human rights issue. We can also imagine that it may not want to make a decision public on an issue involving the Magnitsky law.

I am thinking in particular of anything related to China and Saudi Arabia. With China, it could be out of fear or weakness. With Saudi Arabia, it could be in the interest of preserving an alliance with Canadian arms dealers. We know that those two countries are rogue states with respect to human rights. They would be deserving of Canadian sanctions targeting their nationals involved in serious human rights violations. One need only think of the current genocide of the Uighur minority in Xinjiang; of the terrible fate of Raif Badawi in Saudi Arabia, or journalist Jamal Khashoggi, who was brutally murdered in 2018, likely under the order of the Crown Prince; of the succession of abuses committed by the terror regime of Vladimir Putin against his opponents or simply his critics.

In my view, Bill C‑281 is relevant, as it gives Parliament more power through its committees. Basically, in my opinion, this bill would strengthen our democracy. It could potentially even improve Canada's record in defending human rights. I say “potentially” because it would force the government to take a position, at the risk of revealing its priorities, for example, with respect to Canada's policies concerning China and Saudi Arabia.

I would like to conclude my remarks by declaring my solidarity with the Iranian people, especially Iranian women, who, for 43 years, have been suffering unjustly from fanatical abuse inflicted by a handful of ultra-religious zealots.

I am hopeful that Bill C‑281 will do more, but if it can help punish even one Iranian leader involved in the murder of Mahsa Amini or any other Iranian woman, this bill will have gone a long way. In my humble opinion, this bill is truly necessary and deserves to move forward.

The House resumed from October 7 consideration of the motion that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the sponsor of this motion and everybody who is joining us for this debate. I know there are many people present in the precinct and following along online.

I have the honour of being the co-chair, along with my friend, the mover of this motion, of the parliamentary friendship group for Uighurs. That is one of many reasons that I am proud to speak in support of Motion No. 62 and express the support of the Conservative Party for this motion. I expect that when it comes to a vote, we will be able to speak united and with one voice.

I think there is a critically important role for the official opposition, which is to support the government in the areas we agree with and challenge the government when there are gaps in the response.

This issue is deeply personal for me. It is not hard to tell that I am not of Uighur background myself, but my grandmother was a Holocaust survivor. She was a Jewish child who grew up in Germany and hid out, and many of her family members were killed. I was raised with an awareness of the grievous injustice that had been visited upon her extended family. She was in a position, as a vulnerable child and a member of a persecuted minority, where she was not able to speak out about her own situation, but she survived the war because people who had a voice and had an opportunity to speak had the courage to speak out against what was happening, the injustices that were happening.

I have a big portrait on the wall in my office of Blessed Clemens von Galen, who was the bishop of the Munster area of Germany where she was. He was a bold, fearless critic of the Nazis, someone who had a position of privilege within that society and used his position to speak out against injustice.

A couple of years ago, my sister and I took a trip to Berlin. We were looking at the sites of deportation. What strikes Canadians when they go to Europe is how much closer everything is together. We are used to wide open spaces. We saw the streets through which Jews were brought to a train station and where they were being sent away, and what struck me was the apartment buildings that are close by where people, everyday Germans, would have been living. They would have been able to look down and see their former neighbours and people from their community being pushed and herded away to their deaths.

When I was there with my sister, we talked about this, and I wondered what these people were thinking, the ones who could see what was going on. Perhaps they had a mix of perspectives and knew it was wrong but were afraid in some way of the consequences of speaking out for truth and justice. What were they thinking? Why did they not do more?

At the end of the Second World War, we made a promise to my grandmother's generation of “never again”. Never again would we allow people to be slaughtered because of their ethnic or religious background. We would do everything possible to make genocide a crime and stop it everywhere. However, in the seven years I have spent as a member of Parliament, we have recognized and responded to not one but multiple cases of ongoing genocide. It is clear that we have failed to deliver on the promise we made to my grandmother's generation.

I think about those apartment buildings and the people who could see the injustice happening in front of them. Today, we have satellite imagery. We do not need to be in apartment buildings directly above what is happening. We can see the photographs. We can look at the numbers and see the precipitous drop in birth rates as a result of forced abortion, forced sterilization and systemic sexual violence targeting the Uighur community.

I owe it to my grandmother and to those like her to use the voice I have now to speak out against contemporary injustices, recognize the failure to live up to that promise of “never again” and do all we can to respond.

The first step should be a recognition of the crime of genocide, because in the history of jurisprudence following the Second World War, we tried to establish this crime of genocide and establish a responsibility to protect. Individual nations that are a party to the genocide convention have an obligation. It is not just an obligation where there is conclusive proof of genocide, but an obligation when there is evidence that genocide may be occurring.

Those obligations exist for individual states who are parties to that convention. Those obligations do not depend on whether some international body determines it to be a genocide. Those obligations are for individual states who are signatories to the genocide convention. Canada is a signatory, so Canada has obligations. We have a responsibility to act to protect when we see a genocide happening or when there is evidence to suggest that there may be a genocide happening.

This testimony was clearly given by former justice minister Irwin Cotler at the Subcommittee on International Human Rights when we studied this question. He made clear in his testimony that not one but all five of the possible conditions of the genocide convention have likely been transgressed in the case of Uighurs. The evidence was clear then, and the evidence is more clear now than it was then. When this Parliament first voted on the question of genocide recognition, it was before some of the new information that has come out since and various other tribunals that have made all the more clear the situation we are in.

The problem is that, since nations have recognized that they have an obligation to respond to genocide and that they have an obligation to protect in the case of genocide, those same nations have become reluctant to acknowledge that a genocide is taking place, because when they acknowledge that a genocide is happening, then they are legally obliged to act. However, whether or not they are willing to admit that they know, they do know because the evidence is clear. To paraphrase William Wilberforce, we may choose to look away, but in the face of the evidence, we may never again say that we did not know.

The evidence has been there, yet again this week we had a motion before the House on genocide recognition. Everyone who voted, voted in favour of genocide recognition, but the cabinet still abstained. This is extremely important because, if the government had voted in favour of that motion, it would be recognizing the legal obligations it has under the genocide convention, but it still failed to do that. I salute members of all parties who have been prepared to take that step nonetheless, but it would be that much more impactful if the cabinet, if the Government of Canada, was prepared to take that step.

The House of Commons, by the way, has led in the world. We were the first democratic legislature in the world to recognize the Uighur genocide, and many other legislatures followed. Ironically, while our legislature has led, the government has not yet taken that step.

Nonetheless, there are still so many more things that we can do and we need to do. Now we are seeing myriad private member's motions and bills coming from various parties that respond to the recognition that at least individual members have, if not the government, that a genocide is taking place. We have Motion No. 62, which seeks to advance targeted immigration measures to support Uighurs. We have various pieces of legislation, such as Bill S-211 and Bill S-204, that seek to address forced labour. We have proposals, such Bill C-281, which would strengthen our sanctions regime and allow parliamentary committees to nominate individuals for sanction.

We see this flurry of activity now from members of Parliament and senators using the power that we have as parliamentarians to respond to this recognition of genocide, but the ultimate power rests in the hands of the government. It is the government that has to act, even in the case of the motion before us, which is a non-binding motion that makes a recommendation to the government. It is an important tool to encourage the government to act.

Of course, the government did not have to wait for Motion No. 62, and it does not need to wait for it now. The motion contains a timeline that is fairly generous to the government, fair enough, but I would challenge the government to take up its responsibility. Individual members of Parliament are doing what we can to be a voice for the voiceless to recognize the reality, and the government must as well.

I believe that every single member of this cabinet who has looked at the evidence knows that a genocide is happening and knows that they have an obligation. It will be to their eternal shame if they do not act on that knowledge as soon as possible.

Citizenship and Immigration

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

Mr. Speaker, it has been a pleasure to work with the member's colleague from the Bloc on many of these issues. His colleague proposed the amendment. He talked about this in relation to an Olympic boycott, which was, I think, one potential way of the international community sending a strong signal. Unfortunately, that signal was not sent early enough with sufficient magnitude to achieve the result that his colleague and other members of this House were advocating for.

There are many different things we can do legislatively to push for justice for Uighurs. I really appreciated the speech given by another one of the Bloc member's colleagues on Bill C-281, which is an important international human rights piece of legislation. We have Bill S-211 and Bill S-223 as well, which are both before the foreign affairs committee and are unfortunately waiting to move forward. There are also the immigration measures, the concurrence motion and the motion to be debated later this week. There are many different things we can do.

I wonder if the member would like to comment on the breadth of areas where Canada's Parliament could take action and on the fact that we can make a difference through the steps we take here in Canada's Parliament, even to impact injustices that are half a world away.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, presented to the House on Friday, April 29, be concurred in.

I appreciate the opportunity to open debate, a debate that I understand will be, by unanimous consent, continuing this evening, on the sixth report, which deals with the ongoing injustices facing Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims and the work that we need to do as a House in response to it.

I am grateful for the work of the immigration committee. This is a unanimous report that highlights many important issues, and I want to start the debate by reading points from the report into the record and then discussing them.

The report states:

In light of the fact that Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims in China face an ongoing genocide, and in light of the fact that those in third countries are at continuing risk of detention and deportation back to China, where they face serious risk of arbitrary detention, torture, and other atrocities, the committee calls on the government to:

a) extend existing special immigration measures to Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims, including the expansion of biometrics collection capabilities in third countries and the issuance of Temporary Resident Permits and single journey travel documents to those without a passport;

b) allow displaced Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims in third countries, who face risk of detention and deportation back to China, to seek refuge in Canada;

c) waive the UNHCR refugee determination;

d) and the government provide a comprehensive response by letter to the committee within 30 days.

This motion follows an important step taken by the House about a year and a half ago when the House voted to recognize the Uighur genocide. It was a unanimous vote of all who voted in this place. As members will recall, cabinet abstained and still has not declared its position, but the vote that will take place on this motion, because it is a vote to agree with this report, will provide cabinet and the government with another opportunity to declare their position with respect to the Uighur genocide.

I reflect as well on the fact that much of this conversation was started in the House with the recognition of the genocide motion, but there has been much more discussion in the international community and evidence that has come out since. Just recently, there was the report of Michelle Bachelet. There were significant efforts to influence that report and there were significant limitations with respect to the work she was able to do, but, nonetheless, very damning conclusions came out of that report.

Various analyses have shown forced sterilization, systemic sexual violence targeting Uighur women, people being taken away and put in concentration camps, clear violations of the UN definition as it pertains to genocide and states that are party to that have an obligation to recognize and respond in those cases. This report recognizes and reaffirms that.

The focus of this report is on other measures that the House and the government need to take in response to these events. I want to focus on the ones in this report, as well as other additional measures that can and should be taken.

Following that recognition, even while the government has still not declared its position, other members of Parliament have been trying to put forward constructive initiatives that respond to the question of what Canada can do to advance the issue of justice and human rights for Uighurs. There have been a number of different areas where proposals have been put forward in the House.

This report speaks on additional immigration measures that have been put forward, and I know that later this week we will be having the first hour of debate on Motion No. 62. I should have made note of my colleague's constituency name before, but my colleague from somewhere in Montreal is proposing that and we will be debating that for the first hour on Wednesday. We are seeing a number of different initiatives on the immigration front.

We recognize the reality that Uighurs in China obviously often struggle to get to safety, but, increasingly, the efforts of the Government of China to have influence beyond its borders are creating greater and greater challenges, escalating pressures on refugees who have fled, maybe thought they were in a safe place and are now facing intimidation and persecution that is being pushed on the countries where they are resident as a result of pressure from the Government of China.

As it relates to third countries, it is worth mentioning the case of Huseyin Celil, who is a Canadian citizen detained in China. This was a case where he did not travel to China. Mr. Celil was in Uzbekistan, but was taken from Uzbekistan and sent back to China, where he has been detained for over a decade and a half. Underlining that is the fact that we need to recognize how CCP pressure on third countries can lead to people being sent back and facing human rights violations in the process.

Canada can be a place of safety for these folks in the Uighur diaspora who have left China but who are still facing the risks of potential persecution and repatriation in the countries where they are.

That is why Canada should be looking at strengthening special immigration measures. Our view on this side of the House is that we need to recognize the important role played by private sponsoring organizations and a strategy for responding to persecution and supporting victims of human rights abuses should involve collaboration between governments and private sponsoring entities.

We need to recognize that there may not be resources within those private sponsoring entities to cover all of the needs that exist, and there could be vehicles for joint sponsorship. There could even be cases, perhaps, where the government provides the funding but organizations on the ground here in Canada play a specific role in welcoming newcomers.

All of the data suggests that those who are privately sponsored have a greater level of success once they are here in Canada, so we should look for opportunities in the process to engage private sponsors, such as mosques, churches, synagogues, faith groups, community groups and civil society, to help people acclimatize to coming to Canada. We recognize that this is not just a question of state policy, but the process of welcoming refugees is a collective effort that all Canadians can be involved in. I think, in many cases, people from different backgrounds and different experiences want to be involved, and they certainly get a lot out of it.

I want, as well, to discuss some of the other measures that we need to be taking about, coming out of where we were a year and a half ago.

I have sponsored a private member's bill in this place that comes from the other place, from Senator Ataullahjan. Bill S-223 is a bill that would combat forced organ harvesting and trafficking. The bill would make it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad and receive an organ taken without consent. This is a private member's bill that would have Canada doing what it can to combat this horrific practice of forced organ harvesting and trafficking.

I do want to note that, unfortunately, the progress of Bill S-223 has been stalled. It has been sitting before the foreign affairs committee for months and months. We have not been able to get it adopted and sent back to the House. In fact, I was not originally scheduled to be here in the House right now. I was scheduled to be testifying before the foreign affairs committee, but at the last minute, the meeting scheduled to conduct hearings on Bill S-223 was cancelled by the Chair. That has further delayed the process of bringing this bill forward.

The bill to combat forced organ harvesting and trafficking is pertinent now because we are hearing more about Uighurs being victims of this practice, but it is something that has been going on for decades. In particular, the Falun Gong community has highlighted the abuse of forced organ harvesting and trafficking and how it impacts their community.

It has actually been 15 years that parliamentarians have been working on a bill to combat forced organ harvesting and trafficking. Borys Wrzesnewskyj was first to bring one forward. Irwin Cotler also had a bill.

Since I was elected in 2015, I have been working on this with Senator Ataullahjan through the last three Parliaments. This bill has passed the Senate three times, twice in its current form. It has passed the House once in its current form. It has been studied multiple times by Senate committees and by a House committee, so I think it is time that we finally get it done, if we are able to end the logjam around it at the foreign affairs committee. It should not be about any one individual. This is a bill that will save lives if it is passed. I hope we are able to get it done.

A lot of work, as well, has been done on this issue of forced labour. There are significant concerns about how Uighurs are victims of forced labour and, in general, how Canada's laws to combat forced labour are totally inadequate. There is much more work that needs to be done. Another bill before the foreign affairs committee, also with an unclear timeline around it, is Bill S-211, a bill from a colleague on the government side. It has broad support in the House, and Conservatives supported fast-tracking it at second reading, but it is, again, not moving forward at the moment.

We need to move forward with these bills that are currently before the foreign affairs committee. Bill S-223 and Bill S-211 are two excellent bills. One is on organ harvesting, and the other is aimed at addressing an issue of forced labour.

Bill S-211 would create a reporting mechanism. It is an important step forward, but the other thing we need to do is recognize that in the Uighur region, for example, there is a very significant, very large issue of forced labour. I support measures, such as the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act in the United States, a bipartisan piece of legislation, that would recognize the particular issues in that region, and perhaps in other regions, where there are really significant and coordinated state-pushed efforts to have forced labour. We need to specifically designate those regions.

We need to look at, for instance, Bill S-204, a bill put forward by Senator Housakos that is not in the House yet. It is still in the other place. That bill would impose a ban on the import of any goods coming out of Xinjiang or East Turkistan, the region where Uighurs are in the majority. The goal of this is to recognize the reality that so much of what is produced and exported in that region is tainted by slave labour. We need to have an approach that recognizes the particular risks in this region and targets that region as well. That is another issue that we need to move on legislatively and there may be other measures we can consider that involve the designation of specific regions. This would target the specific regions in the world where we know there is a very high level of forced labour and a high risk that goods coming out of there will have involve slave labour.

There are many mainstream brands that people will be familiar with, that they may use products from, that import products from that part of the world. It is very concerning. The government announced a new policy on combatting these imports, but, in fact, there was only one shipment that was ever stopped and it was subsequently released. Therefore, we are clearly lacking in this area, and there is much more work that needs to be done.

In terms of some of the legislative proposals that are coming forward, I want to also recognize Bill C-281, a bill that had its first hour of debate recently and has its second hour of debate coming up soon. It is from my colleague in Northumberland—Peterborough South.

Bill C-281 is the international human rights act. It contains a number of measures that would push forward Canada's response on international human rights, including requiring the minister of foreign affairs to table an annual report regarding the government's work on international human rights, include listing, as part of that report, prisoners of conscience, which is of particular concern.

It would also create a mechanism by which individuals could be nominated for sanctions under the Magnitsky act and a parliamentary committee could pass a motion suggesting that someone be sanctioned under the Magnitsky act. If that motion were to pass, the minister would be obliged to provide some kind of a response. This parliamentary trigger mechanism for Magnitsky sanctions has been adopted in other countries. It is very important because a Magnitsky sanctions tool, though a powerful tool, still leaves the discretion entirely in the hands of the government.

There have been many countries around the world where there are serious human rights abuses, and the government has actually failed to sanction anybody from that country. There has been very limited use of Magnitsky sanctions in response to the Uighur genocide. That is why I support this proposal from my colleague to have a parliamentary trigger mechanism, so that a parliamentary committee could, if not compel the government to sanction someone, at least compel the government to provide some kind of a response with respect to why they are or are not considering moving forward with a sanction.

These are some of the measures that we have moved on, from the act of recognition by Parliament a year and a half ago to now, trying to propose concrete, constructive measures that would see Canada play a greater and greater role in combatting this ongoing injustice. We have talked, of course, about the immigration measures that are called for in this report as well as immigration measures that have been put forward in other initiatives that we have seen. We have talked about the issues of forced organ harvesting and trafficking and the legislation that has been put forward on that.

We have talked about different kinds of trade measures, such as those contained in Bill S-211 from Senator Miville-Dechêne, as well as Bill S-204 from Senator Housakos. Bill S-211, which is the general reporting mechanism requiring companies to be involved in reporting on these issues, also has the designation of particular regions of concern and the issues that come out of those. Then there are the other measures in the International Human Rights Act from my colleague, in Bill C-281.

As such, we have seen many different legislative initiatives. I guess one thing to acknowledge that they all have in common is that they are all private members' initiatives, so we are seeing a flurry of activity from individual members, many from our side, many from the Senate and some from other parties as well. However, we have not really seen any government legislation that is aimed at closing the gap, and I think members understand the processes of this House and the long and arduous journey every private member's bill has to make. I have seen it myself in the work I have done on the organ harvesting and trafficking issue. I work on a piece of legislation, and every time it is actually voted on it is unanimous, yet there are so many steps it has to go through, little amendments here and there, that it ends up not getting done.

We are in the third Parliament in which I have worked on this bill, and it has been attempted in two previous Parliaments as well, so there is this long journey private members' bills have to go on, and the risks are the same for other good private members' bills that are responding to urgent and present human rights concerns. That is why the government should take a look at some of these initiatives and maybe consider putting forward proposals that advance them through government legislation.

There is so much more that needs to be done on this issue of forced labour, like even getting it out of government procurement, never mind addressing the import of products of forced labour that come into the private sector. We are relying on private members' legislation to do that job, and we should support these private members' bills, but the government should be willing to lead on this and provide really comprehensive solutions.

One of the areas the government can particularly lead in combatting the injustice facing Uighurs is in working more closely with our allies on combatting the importation of products made from forced labour. There is obviously a lot of tracing and data work that is required in terms of blocking out products made from forced labour from coming into Canada, and this is why we can benefit from sharing information with our allies. If we have consistent laws and are sharing information around forced labour, then we can be more effective working in collaboration.

In fact, we have already started down this road by recognizing as part of our trade deal with the United States and Mexico an obligation around combatting forced labour, but Canada needs to now live up to that obligation. We can share information. We can adjust our policies to really strengthen the work that is required to prevent products from forced labour from coming into this country.

In conclusion, I want to recognize the incredible work that has been done by the Uighur community in particular, but more broadly by other communities, like the Muslim community in general and many other communities that are coming alongside as allies in support of justice and human rights, who have been advocating on these various points related to the injustices the Uighurs have faced.

The information has very clearly been exposed, despite the best efforts of certain actors to suppress it. It is now widely known: the existence of a campaign to put people in concentration camps, forced sterilization and systemic sexual violence. The subcommittee on international human rights two years ago heard brutal testimony from survivors about what had happened, and I reflected at the time on this quote from William Wilberforce, who said, “[Y]ou may choose to look the other way but you can never again say you did not know.”

Members of Parliament answered that call; the subcommittee on international human rights was unanimous and the House was unanimous, but the cabinet has still been silent and unclear, so this motion would provide the cabinet with an opportunity to vote again on the question, since this motion would reaffirm a recognition of the genocide.

It would also go further. We are not waiting for the cabinet; we are pushing forward with measures that are required in terms of pushing for additional immigration measures, and I have talked about the need to combat forced organ harvesting and trafficking, the need to bring in new trade measures and the important additional measures in Bill C-281.

I hope members will support this concurrence and the other measures that are urgently required to stand with our Uighur brothers and sisters, who face so much injustice in China as well as threats even after they have fled.

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

We are currently debating a private member’s bill in the House, Bill C‑281, which deals with media that could be banned or denied a licence to operate in Canada if they are owned by governments of countries that commit genocide. In this regard, by the way, Canada has yet to recognize the genocide against Uighurs.

You talk about the influence of countries around the world. Is media influence something that should be given more attention?

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

Madam Speaker, I should ask the member, given the presence of my colleague from Northumberland—Peterborough South, about Bill C-281, which is a private member's bill that my colleague put forward to strengthen the Magnitsky act by creating a mechanism by which a parliamentary committee can effectively nominate someone to be sanctioned under the act and require the government to respond. The existence of a parliamentary trigger, which exists in other countries, in a way forces the government to be more engaged in responding to what parliamentarians are proposing with respect to sanctions.

Does the member think the excellent proposals from my colleague in Bill C-281, which would create a greater role for parliamentarians in putting forward individuals for sanctioning, would strengthen our democracy and our sanctions regime?

International Human Rights Act

[Bryan May, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, as I will likely be the final speaker here today before we rise for Thanksgiving, I want to wish everyone in the House, the Speaker, all the staff, the clerks, the pages, who help make everything run, and security a very happy and prosperous Thanksgiving. I am certainly looking forward to getting home and seeing family, as I am sure everyone is.

Canada's commitment to fostering respect for democratic values and the promotion and protection of human rights is long-standing. Over the last 70 years, we have played a prominent role in the development of significant human rights instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Canada is recognized for its system of justice and strong institutions that positively reinforce the rule of law. Canadian expertise is sought to help others strengthen their own efforts to respect human rights, and our government has taken active measures to stand against human rights violations and support the brave work of human rights defenders around the world.

Canada's efforts in this domain are considerable, especially in contexts where impunity for gross and systemic violations of human rights are evident and where there are protracted political crises at play. In such contexts, the international community must be able to signal its concerns and work collectively to change behaviour. Sanctions are a key part of the tool kit that can be deployed.

Bill C-281, introduced in the House of Commons by the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South, seeks to amend the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, also known as the Sergei Magnitsky law. It is within this vein that I wish to speak and elaborate on Canada's robust sanctions regime and our role as a global leader in holding the violators of human rights to account.

In our challenging contemporary landscape, with its mounting disruption and global uncertainty, sanctions remain a valuable tool for addressing the violations of international norms and standards and pressuring states to change their behaviour. Indeed, Canada and the wider international community have worked together for decades to build this strong foundation of peace, prosperity and security for the global community.

Canada continues to stand shoulder to shoulder with our closest allies in the deployment of sanctions as part of a principled but pragmatic approach to foreign policy. Under both of our pieces of autonomous sanctions legislation, the Special Economic Measures Act and the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, Canada has become a global leader in the sanctions effort to end impunity for those who violate international human rights.

I see my time is almost over, so I will simply wrap up by again wishing everyone an amazing long weekend and Thanksgiving. I want to wish all constituents in Cambridge, Ontario, and those across Canada a happy Thanksgiving too.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of Bill C-281, the international human rights act.

Let me take this opportunity to commend my friend and colleague, the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South, for championing this important piece of legislation, which will strengthen Canada's position to advance international human rights. The bill will do so in several concrete ways.

It strengthens the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act passed by the Harper Conservative government. Cluster munitions are having a devastating impact on civilians, given their indiscriminate effects. The bill will give additional teeth to Canada's international commitments, codified under the act, by restricting investments in entities that are in contravention of it.

The bill further strengthens international human rights by giving the government tools under the Broadcasting Act to stop the proliferation of foreign propaganda from genocidal regimes.

The bill also provides important new reporting requirements on the part of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. More specifically, the bill requires the minister to publish an annual report on the actions the government is taking to advance international human rights, as well as to name and provide background on the plight of the prisoners of conscience Canada is seeking to release.

This has two positive impacts. First, it enhances transparency and accountability by requiring the Minister of Foreign Affairs to spell out in writing exactly what the government is doing to advance international human rights. Second, it provides a platform to shine a light on the individual cases of prisoners of conscience and, further, to draw attention to human rights abusers who are responsible for serious crimes.

Importantly, this bill provides a new accountability mechanism for the government in the realm of sanctions policy. Pursuant to the bill, if the foreign affairs committee of either the Senate or the House of Commons recommends the imposition of Magnitsky sanctions against human rights violators, the Minister of Foreign Affairs would be compelled, within 40 days, to table in Parliament a response indicating the government's position on the imposition of such recommended sanctions, as well as its reasons for imposing or not imposing sanctions.

This is needed and timely, especially having regard for the track record of the government, which for the past several years has failed. It has refused to impose Magnitsky sanctions, notwithstanding the fact that there is no shortage of human rights violators and that the Magnitsky sanctions are an important tool the government has to sanction human rights violators.

For example, when the special committee on Canada-China relations tabled its report in February 2021, it made a unanimous recommendation that targeted Magnitsky sanctions be imposed on the Chinese communist regime officials responsible for serious human rights violations in Hong Kong. The response of the government was to ignore that unanimous recommendation. The Liberals did absolutely nothing. What was the rationale for why they did nothing while allies such as the United States imposed sanctions? We do not know. The government did not need to say or provide a rationale. The bill changes that.

Hong Kong is not the first time that the government has ignored the will of Parliament with respect to international human rights. A little more than four years ago, the House voted overwhelmingly to designate the IRGC as a terrorist entity. More than four years later and 1,003 days after the IRGC shot down PS752, killing 176 passengers, including 85 Canadian citizens and permanent residents, the government continues to drag its feet. The government still has not implemented the will of Parliament in designating the IRGC as a terrorist entity.

This is the same IRGC, by the way, that an Ontario superior court judge determined committed an act of terrorism in shooting down PS752, and the same IRGC that is arresting, torturing and murdering peaceful pro-democracy protesters in Iran as we speak.

Earlier this week, the Prime Minister was asked, not once, not twice, but on four occasions, by the leader of the official opposition, if the IRGC is a terrorist organization. The Prime Minister could not bring himself to state the obvious, that the IRGC is a terrorist organization. It was a total abdication of leadership on the part of the government and absolutely shameful.

It is not just about designating the IRGC as a terrorist entity. The government has failed to sanction any of the perpetrators responsible for the downing of PS752.

Dr. Hamed Esmaeilion, president and spokesperson for the Association of Families of Flight PS752 Victims, appeared before the Subcommittee on International Human Rights in June. He said that, the previous year, his association hand-delivered to the Minister of Foreign Affairs more than 50 names of perpetrators responsible for the downing of PS752. More than a year later, there was no action and no Magnitsky sanctions. There is nothing at all.

What is the government's rationale? We do not know. It will not say. This bill is a mechanism that provides some level of accountability.

What we have over there is a government that is soft on terrorism, that will not even call the Uighur genocide being perpetrated by the Chinese Communist regime what it is, a genocide. We have a government that has repeatedly dragged its feet in imposing Magnitsky sanctions on human rights violators who are committing crimes against humanity.

In the face of the disgraceful record of the government when it comes to international human rights, at the very least it is imperative that parliamentary committees have a tool to compel the government to respond and explain its lack of action. This bill does precisely that, and it is why it has my full support.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I thank the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South for this thoughtful bill. I thank my constituents from Nunavut for trusting in me to represent their voice on such important matters as Bill C-281. I especially appreciate this opportunity, as I learned more about our laws in this bill and where our work as parliamentarians can make a difference for human rights domestically and internationally.

The amendments proposed have four different pieces of legislation that are important, given the gaps in Canada's efforts to meet international human rights obligations. While much more could have been proposed, the New Democrats will vote in support of this bill because it addresses concerns about some of the weaknesses in Canada's approach to human rights.

The four instruments that would be amended are 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.

My intervention will continue with each set of amendments to the acts in that order.

Regarding amendments to the the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, New Democrats agree that the minister, in exercising his or her powers, must annually report publicly measures taken to advance human rights. New Democrats agree this amendment would increase transparency and accountability.

Canada's current international human rights mechanisms, obligations and reporting are complicated and difficult to measure. This bill would make it easier for Canadians to find out what Canada is doing through the work of the minister through the suggested report and publishing the list as suggested.

Requiring an annual publication could bring to light the need for Canada to be more consistent in its approaches to meeting its human rights obligations. I will highlight two cases. Everyone is aware of how hard Canada worked to have the two Michaels released from China. More attention needs to be brought to Canadian Huseyin Celil who has remained in prison since 2006. According to Amnesty International, “Huseyin has spent much of his time in solitary confinement. He lacks healthy food and is in poor health” and “Huseyin has been in prison for 10 years after an unfair trial [in China].”

Regarding the production of a list of prisoners of conscience that Canada may be working to have released, this legislation would be a good step toward transparency and accountability. There is, however, a concern that there is no international legal definition of the term “prisoner of conscience”, and this creates a risk that individuals could be excluded from this important process. At debate, New Democrats would suggest wording that would tie it closer to international human rights laws and standards.

For the above reasons, I put in the record that the United Nations has recommended for years that Canada should have an international human rights action strategy. Adding that requirement for the preparation, completion and annual reporting of the national action plan could strengthen this bill. New Democrats will advocate for a whole-of-government approach and would suggest further discussion on whether requiring a singular focus on the minister's obligation is sufficient.

On the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, New Democrats have always said that Canada's sanctions regime needs improvements. Canada's transparency and enforcement must be at the crux of this. We currently do not know how the government makes decisions about who should or should not be on this list. New Democrats expect that the foreign affairs committee would undertake this study shortly.

This bill would not fix all of the problems in the current system. However, it would create a mechanism to allow committees of the House or the Senate to nominate designations to Canada's sanctions lists. Experts like Bill Browder have recommended this and we support it.

On amendments to the Broadcasting Act, the New Democrats support the proposed changes. We only have to mention last February to see how foreign content influences Canadians' views in a very negative way. While there is existing legislation that allows de-authorization, this act will strengthen the bill by automatically prohibiting the issuing, amendment or renewal of broadcasting licences in cases where the House or the Senate have recognized genocide or where Canadian sanctions apply.

On the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, this amendment attempts to make improvements but does not go far enough. Cluster bombs have caused over 20,000 casualties since 1960. This bill does not address the major problem in our current legislation, which permits Canadians to transport or directly use cluster munitions as part of joint operations with another country's military. This is an issue the New Democrats have asked the government to fix for years.

Overall, this bill has many opportunities to provide more transparency for Canadians regarding international human rights. This bill would not fix everything. We have an important role regarding international human rights. We set the stage for other countries to look up to the choices we make. We must do more to set the example of what we want to see and hold people accountable for their actions. We must be seen as a country that will truly uphold international human rights standards.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C‑281 introduced by the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South. This bill has a relatively long, but rather clear title and, as the member mentioned, it is a good exercise in diction. It is the act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, also known as the Sergei Magnitsky Law, the Broadcasting Act and the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act.

In this first hour of second reading of the bill, I will end the suspense right away and say that my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois and I are voting in favour of Bill C‑281. The underlying principle of Bill C‑281 is quite commendable because its provisions seek to better combat human rights violations in the world. I think that Bill C‑281 should definitely be debated, discussed and perhaps improved. I commend the member's openness to the idea of improving this bill in committee. I will even make one or two suggestions in the House that I hope will fuel the work of the committee.

Bill C‑281 proposes changes to four current pieces of legislation and I propose to go over them one by one.

The first act to be amended is the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, more specifically section 10, which lists the powers, duties and functions of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Bill C‑281 would add two obligations for the minister to fulfill every year, that is publishing a report outlining measures that Canada has taken to advance human rights internationally and a list that sets out the names and circumstances of prisoners of conscience detained worldwide for whose release the Government of Canada is actively working. In our opinion, the first obligation represents a way of ensuring that when the minister makes an announcement, it is followed by concrete action.

Recently, the Department of Foreign Affairs has not had a shining record of walking the talk. For example, after announcing a freeze on the assets of Russian oligarchs in the spring, it was impossible to subsequently ascertain if they had actually been frozen or who was responsible for the file.

Then, after it was announced that these assets could be liquidated in order to help Ukraine financially, we learned that the bill probably could not be implemented. Simply put, for sanctions to work, just announcing them is not enough; they have to be implemented. The same goes for measures to advance human rights internationally.

As for the list of names of prisoners of conscience, I think it would be worthwhile to ask some experts whether exceptions should be made in terms of making that list public, for instance in the case of political prisoners whose safety could be compromised if their names were published. It might also be worth thinking about a way to allow a group of parliamentarians, for example, to determine whether a name should indeed be excluded. This could be examined by a committee working in camera.

The second act amended by Bill C‑281 is the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, as known as the Magnitsky act.

Bill C‑281 states that the minister must respond to committee recommendations regarding the application of Magnitsky sanctions against an individual and that the minister must table that response within 40 days after the adoption of a report recommending such sanctions or within the time limit specified by the committee. The minister's response must include a response to the committee's recommendations. The minister must indicate whether an order or regulation is to be made and set out the reasons for the decision to impose or not impose sanctions.

This new legislation would ensure a diligent response on the government's part to alleged human rights abuses. It will allow for faster follow-up on committee recommendations than the current standard, which gives the government 150 days to respond and states that the committee can request a response, but there is no obligation. Furthermore, under normal circumstances, the response to a committee report can be “comprehensive”, a term that Speakers of the House have always declined to define. The requirement to set out reasons for a decision is more precise and more in line with the principles of natural justice.

The third act that Bill C‑281 seeks to amend is the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act. Cluster munitions are weapons made up of a number of submunitions. They scatter a large number of explosive devices over a wide area.

These weapons are notorious for leading to many deaths and serious injuries each year. The victims are often children, since the small, brightly coloured, baseball-sized bombs do not always explode on contact with the ground. They can remain there for many years, even decades, before being handled by children.

This type of weapon is not prohibited under international law, with the exception of using them in built-up civilian areas. However, there is the 2008 Dublin convention, to which 110 countries are party, including France, Germany and the United Kingdom, but which countries such as China, India, Brazil, Russia and the United States have neither signed nor ratified. Canada signed the agreement in 2008, but the legislation allowing for its ratification did not come into force until 2015, and it is precisely this legislation that the current bill, Bill C‑281, seeks to amend.

As currently written, the legislation prohibits all persons from using, manufacturing, acquiring, possessing, moving or importing cluster munitions. The amendment broadens the group covered by these prohibitions to include any person or corporation that has a financial interest in a group or person that has committed, aided or abetted a third party in committing the wrongdoing that I have just listed.

We believe that Bill C‑281 is a step in the right direction towards a safer world, especially for children in the long term, but we are aware that the bill may be met with resistance from the American arms lobby, given that many companies still manufacture this type of weapon. We hope that our parliamentary colleagues will not give in to this pressure when it comes time to discuss amendments to the bill and vote on it.

Finally, Bill C‑281 will amend the Broadcasting Act to facilitate the revocation of licences for television or radio broadcasts in Canada when they are influenced by a foreign national or entity that has committed acts that the Senate or the House of Commons has recognized as genocide, or if these broadcasts are influenced by officials subject to sanctions under the Sergei Magnitsky Law. This bill would give the House the power to use simple motions to block foreign media, if those media are vulnerable to being influenced by entities that have committed crimes. Whether or not the content of these media is neutral or the fact that the content is beyond reproach would not be the basis for the assessment. State media are used to spread ideas, information about a culture, a viewpoint of the country in question, in short to promote a country directly or indirectly. We can think of the example of China and its vaccine diplomacy. China widely publicized the fact that it distributed massive amounts of vaccines in Africa. The purpose was to bolster its image by making people forget about its dubious management at the outset of the pandemic, and also to make people overlook the crimes committed against the Uighurs within its borders.

As for non-neutral content, unfortunately there is no shortage of examples of that, too. The war in Ukraine brought to light the full arsenal deployed by Russia to destabilize Ukraine and NATO through a hybrid war effort, which includes using the media to sow doubt or to destabilize the government by creating internal tensions among citizens. For example, Russian media gave a huge platform to anti-vaccine and anti-health measure conspiracy theorists, especially those who criticized government policies, giving them greater exposure to criticize local governments and whip up public discontent. We have also seen this kind of tactic used on another scale elsewhere in the world. Russian media specifically targeted Canadian soldiers on a mission in Latvia with the aim of discrediting them and stirring up mistrust among locals. This kind of disinformation campaign can go on for years.

Both in cases of neutral content and in the case of content that is explicitly not, banning such a broadcast through a motion does not seem excessive when the country in question is recognized by Parliament as having committed an act of genocide.

For all these reasons, my colleagues and I support the bill at second reading. We hope to have the opportunity to follow its progress through committee, which I am sure will be very interesting.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Madam Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to take a moment to wish a happy Thanksgiving to all members and all employees of the House of Commons.

I hope everyone has an opportunity to spend time with their loved ones this holiday weekend.

Canada's commitment to uphold human rights abroad, as well as policies and actions undertaken to protect these rights internationally, are a frequent focus of parliamentarian attention. Recent events on the international stage have continued to shed light on grave and reprehensible human rights violations, and our government has promised to continue to explore all options when it comes to holding those responsible to account and defending human rights here and around the world.

Therefore, I welcome the opportunity to elaborate on Canada's active engagement in advancing international human rights efforts globally, including with regard to human rights issues raised in Bill C-281, which was introduced in the House of Commons by the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South.

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, would amend various pieces of legislation on which I will expand. I believe MPs around the room agree that Canada should continue to uphold its commitment to human rights in a strong and meaningful way.

We know that only so much can be changed in the halls of power. Without the active and meaningful engagement of those whose human rights have been violated or who are in situations of particular vulnerability, change cannot last nor can our policies be effective. That is why Canada continues to engage with indigenous peoples, diaspora communities, activists, women's rights organizations, civil society, journalists and human rights defenders. Without their lived experience, expertise and efforts to promote and protect human rights in Canada and around the world, human rights violations and abuses would remain unacknowledged.

“Voices at Risk: Canada’s Guidelines on Supporting Human Rights Defenders” is a clear statement of Canada's commitment to supporting the vital and courageous work of human rights defenders. The guidelines outline Canada's approach and offer practical advice to Canadian diplomats to support human rights defenders. They reflect the experience gained by Canada through multilateral and bilateral engagement, and are informed by the work and advice of Canadian civil society organizations and human rights defenders themselves.

However, the colloquial term “prisoner of conscience”, as used in the bill, does not have an agreed upon international or domestic legal definition. Even labelling an individual as a human rights defender based on available definitions can be challenging in all but the most unambiguous cases.

A publicized list that sets out the names and circumstances of human rights defenders detained worldwide for whose release the Government of Canada is actively working on may impede diplomatic actions and Canada's support for these individuals, potentially endangering their safety and, in more serious cases, their lives.

I would like to thank the member who introduced this bill for his agreement to be amendable. We should be mindful to apply the principle of doing no harm. It respects the well-being and privacy of individuals and needs to be considered before sharing information with the public.

The Government of Canada takes the matter of imposing sanctions very seriously. As stated by our Minister of Foreign Affairs, Canada will continue to coordinate with like-minded partners to seek to change the behaviour of those who commit human rights atrocities. We consider autonomous sanctions as just one component of Canada's wider foreign policy options in the protection of human rights.

Canada is judicious in its approach to imposing sanctions, both against individuals and against states, and is committed to their targeted and coordinated use when appropriate. Canada has established a rigorous due-diligence process to consider and evaluate threats to international peace and security and possible cases of human rights violations or corruption anywhere in the world within the context of other ongoing efforts to promote human rights and combat corruption.

Canada has a history of taking action to rid the world of cluster munitions, including through our ratification of the Convention on Cluster Munitions, known as the convention, in 2015, and by support demining efforts. We recognize the devastating impact they have on civilians, and we will continue to support a wide range of activities in this regard, knowing that these actions will actively save lives.

Cluster munitions pose an immediate threat to civilians during conflict by randomly scattering submunitions or bomblets over a wide area. They continue to pose a threat post conflict by leaving remnants, including submunitions that fail to explode upon impact, becoming de facto land mines. These explosives kill and harm victims around the world indiscriminately.

International humanitarian law prohibits the indiscriminate use of any weapon, including cluster munitions, and prohibits the deliberate targeting of civilians. We call on all states to join the convention, cease to use these weapons and destroy their stockpiles. We would also stress that non-party states already have a legal obligation during armed conflicts to refrain from indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks with any weapon, including cluster munitions.

Canada is fully committed to the goals of the convention and has ensured, through the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, that it will meet all obligations of the convention that will require implementation through domestic law. Among other things, Canada cannot itself use, develop, produce, acquire, stockpile or transfer cluster munitions or expressly request their use when the choice of munitions used is within our exclusive control.

Canada welcomes the large number of actions dedicated to gender mainstreaming within the Lausanne Action Plan, committing member-state parties to the convention to stronger gender inclusion in combatting cluster munitions.

I will now discuss the Broadcasting Act.

Media can play an important role in the promotion of human rights. Communication regulators like the CRTC need to be mindful of their role in advancing regulation in the public interest, particularly when it comes to fundamental issues related to the rule of law, democracy and human rights. As the CRTC recently stated, “Freedom of speech and a range of perspectives are a necessary part of our democracy. However, it is a privilege and not a right to be broadcast in Canada.”

Our ability to address human rights issues as parliamentarians directly affects Canada's ability to create change and effectively impact other intersecting issues, including COVID-19, migration, climate, emerging tech and counterterrorism, which all have human rights dimensions. Bill C-281 canvasses many of these intersecting themes.

We look forward to working with the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South, as well as with all members of this House, to find concrete and durable solutions to address the human rights challenges of tomorrow.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Northumberland—Peterborough South for his speech and for his bill.

I wonder if he could comment on the issue of cluster munitions. We know that the United States is not a signatory to the Dublin convention and that it manufactures this type of weapon.

Bill C‑281 seeks to expand the list of people who would be targeted by the Canadian restrictions. I wonder whether, as members of Parliament, we are not running the risk of being lobbied by American weapons retailers to ensure that shareholders or people involved in these companies, for example, are not targeted by the bill.

Does my colleague share my concern?

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

moved that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, my apologies for putting you through such linguistic gymnastics toward the end of the session this week and right before Thanksgiving.

On that note, I would like to wish everyone in the chamber and everyone across the country a happy Thanksgiving.

I am honoured today to rise with respect to my private member's bill, which is Bill C-281, the international human rights act. Before I get into the substance of the speech, I would like to start by thanking some important people who have been critical to getting this bill to the floor of the House of Commons.

I would like to thank the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, who was instrumental in coming up with this idea and who worked alongside me. He is constantly fighting for people around the world and pushing for the good causes of human rights.

I would also like to thank the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, who was a driving force behind getting the Magnitsky act in Canada. His tireless and relentless work for the people of Ukraine is admirable, and I thank him very much for laying the foundations for what most of this bill deals with.

Getting into the substance of this legislation, as Canadians we are incredibly fortunate. We live in a country where democratic and human rights are almost taken for granted. Sadly, there are billions of people in this world who do not have the comfort and security of knowing that their minimal basic human rights are protected. Many of them spend nearly every waking hour wondering what action the government will take or what steps the government is taking against them to violate their human rights and cause them and their family members pain. They live in waking fear of the government just because they want to express their beliefs and thoughts or want to be their authentic selves.

While it may be naive to believe that legislation created here or in any parliament around the world can bring peace and security to people everywhere, it does not mean that we should not start along that journey or that we cannot start the journey toward providing basic human rights wherever we live. Whether someone is born in Canada or Venezuela, everyone should have access to basic rights. No one should have to live in constant fear of their government.

To get into the substance of my bill, it seeks to do two primary things through four significant amendments. First, it seeks to help the government hold to account some of the worst violators of human rights in the world. Second, it seeks to provide a little more peace and security to people in Canada and around the world.

As I said, the legislation contains at least four significant amendments to help those who want to protect the vulnerable in Canada and around the world. The first section imposes certain reporting requirements on the Minister of Foreign Affairs in relation to international human rights. This includes the requirement of a publication about their activities every year. This report would include the names and circumstances of individuals the Canadian government and the Department of Foreign Affairs are advocating for and working to get released. They are prisoners of conscience being held simply because of the beliefs and thoughts they have about the betterment of their countries.

These reporting obligations are not in any way meant to restrict or obstruct the Department of Foreign Affairs and the important work it does. Rather, this section is designed to support the department. We believe that we can bring more oxygen into the room so that NGOs and the public will be in a better position to pressure governments around the world to release these individuals, who are working so hard for the betterment of their countries and fighting for human rights, freedom of expression and freedom of speech.

We ultimately believe as Conservatives that sunlight is nearly always the best disinfectant. By raising public awareness in Canada and abroad about the incarceration and sometimes, sadly, the torture of prisoners of conscience, people who are suffering human rights violations, we can help drive that out. We can change that potentially, leading to the freedom of prisoners of conscience and advocates of democracy, women's rights, LGBTQ2 rights and freedom.

We firmly believe that if we can get this more into the public sphere so that Canadians know of the suffering that is going on around the world, they will become more engaged and involved. We can then bring people like the two Michaels home earlier and reduce the suffering of Canadians and, really, the many people around the world who are being held simply for being who they are.

The next section deals with the Magnitsky act. The Magnitsky act is, of course, named after Sergei Magnitsky. Sergei was a relentless champion fighting against Russian corruption at the time. He saw his country, unfortunately, governed too often by corruption, and he pushed hard and fought back. Unfortunately, the consequences for him were dire. He was imprisoned. His medical conditions were completely ignored by his captors. Eventually, he was tortured and beaten to death for fighting corruption. In his name, Magnitsky acts have been passed by parliaments around the world, in Canada and the United States, among other countries.

The Magnitsky act seeks to put sanctions on individuals who are human rights violators so that these people cannot just walk around our world scot-free without paying the price or without having any accountability for the horrible actions they have committed against some of the best people humanity has to offer.

My private member's bill seeks to amend the Magnitsky act to make sure that, within 40 days of either the House of Commons or Parliament passing a motion to sanction an individual or a group of individuals, the Department of Foreign Affairs will have to report back. That would enforce a greater degree of accountability. If, in fact, either the Senate, the House of Commons or both have deemed that Magnitsky sanctions should be enforced, I think it is at least reasonable for the foreign affairs department to come to a parliamentary committee and explain the reason an individual is not being sanctioned or why an individual is being sanctioned.

These individuals are committing some of the most heinous crimes imaginable. If the will of Parliament, ultimately the House of Commons, is the will of the people, and the will of 37 million people is that someone be sanctioned, at the very least, the Department of Foreign Affairs should be able to, within 40 days, come to a parliamentary committee and explain itself.

This bill does not even go so far as to say that we force the Department of Foreign Affairs to sanction someone. All it is asking for is an explanation of why or why not, which makes sense because, in some cases, there may be legitimate reasons for why not. I cannot foresee any, but all we are asking for is that they explain it.

We thoroughly believe that, by having this accountability mechanism and reporting mechanism, we will get more individuals sanctioned. Right now, we are not having enough people sanctioned under the Magnitsky act. Initially, in 2018 when the Magnitsky act was passed, we had a flurry of individuals in Myanmar, Russia, Venezuela and others who were all sanctioned.

Since then, we have had very little activity from the government on that front. In fact, no one has been sanctioned under the Magnitsky act since the initial sanctions, and the last one was in Saudi Arabia. Since then, we have not had any. We want to put this reporting and accountability mechanism in place to encourage the government to utilize the tools it has to sanction those individuals who are committing the most vile of crimes and who are violating people's human rights, like the activities we have seen recently in places like Iran and Russia, and to explain why or why not the government is choosing to sanction these individuals.

At the very least, even if we do not encourage the government to sanction more people, which we hopefully do, we will be putting more transparency and accountability around the Magnitsky sanctions. As I said, the Magnitsky sanctions, as reported by many individuals, are actually our most powerful tool to enforce human rights around the world. If we are not using it, we should at least know why.

In fact, Bill Browder, who is one of the biggest drivers of the Magnitsky act, not just in Canada but around the world, in creating and enforcing the Magnitsky act, actually said before a committee of this very Parliament that the lack of use of the Magnitsky act sanctions should have a parliamentary review.

We are acting on Mr. Browder's great advice and in this private member's bill we are asking for a 40-day review any time this House or the Senate deems that Magnitsky act sanctions should be put in place.

The next section is the Broadcasting Act. The bill states:

...this enactment amends the Broadcasting Act to prohibit the issue, amendment or renewal of a licence in relation to a broadcasting undertaking that is vulnerable to being influenced by a foreign national or entity that has committed acts or omissions that the Senate or the House of Commons has recognized as genocide or that is subject to sanctions under the...(Sergei Magnitsky Law) or under the Special Economic Measures Act.

I have already defined what the Magnitsky act is. The Special Economic Measures Act is the legislation under which the government has imposed sanctions recently on Iran, and we thank it for doing so. We continue to ask that it list the IRGC as a terrorist organization, but at least it has gone this far and we look forward to the government taking a stronger role. Quite frankly, I look forward to its support on this legislation as a way of demonstrating that the government is serious about protecting human rights around the world.

I will go back to the amendment to the Broadcasting Act. In layman's terms, what this amendment would do is take an important step in preventing countries around the world that are either committing genocide or have been found guilty of the most significant of human rights violations from utilizing Canadian airwaves to spread their propaganda. The Government of Canada formally removed Russia Today and RT France from the list of non-Canadian programming services and stations authorized for distribution on March 16 on the basis that the distribution of these services were not in the public interest, as their content appears to constitute abusive comments or is likely to expose the Ukrainian people to hatred or contempt on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin and that their programming is antithetical to the achievement of the policy objectives of the Broadcasting Act.

Conservatives applaud and support the CRTC's decision to pull their licences, but it had to take this broad approach in its definition because there was no current mechanism to pull Russia TV when it was clearly using Canadian airwaves just to spread its propaganda. This amendment would give the CRTC an appropriate mechanism so it does not have to try to wiggle around existing legislation. It will have a specific tool to say that country X is committing genocide and spreading its propaganda in our country and the CRTC does not believe it should spreading propaganda in our country. Instead of having to sort of gerrymander around the rules in order to pull out the propaganda that is for malicious and nefarious reasons, we believe that this modest amendment would allow the CRTC to protect vulnerable Canadians.

The last part of this legislation is the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act. Currently, cluster munitions kill thousands of people around the world. In fact recently there was an increase because the Russians have used them in Ukraine, and fully 97% of people caught by these submunitions, which are basically a bomb that blows up and puts smaller bombs all over, were civilians. Of them, 90 of those individuals were children. This is not a weapon of war. This is a weapon of terror that hurts civilians, specifically children. We need to get these banned and that is why I am proud that Stephen Harper took the first step. This step would also deny financing to companies that are building and producing cluster munitions. It would prevent it. This has been successful in other countries, so Conservatives believe this will go a great deal of the way to reducing civilian and children casualties.

I thank the House for what I anticipate to be overwhelming support to help make life a little more peaceful, a little more secure, and to hold the most awful perpetrators accountable.

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

It is frustrating and dishonest when you have a political party trying to push a sort of great fog over a position on a critical issue. If they're not going to list the IRGC, they should explain why. I think they should list them, but they should own up to their position.

You presented some names that you would like to see on a sanctions list. I want to mention that Bill C-281, which is a private member's bill from my colleague Philip Lawrence, will be debated tomorrow. It seeks to amend the Sergei Magnitsky Law to create a provision whereby a parliamentary committee can nominate someone for sanctions. That would allow, for instance, the foreign affairs committee to nominate some of the individuals from of your list, or all of them perhaps, to the government. Then it would require the government to provide a response to that nomination.

We're talking about listing the IRGC, but it's also notable that nobody connected with the Iranian regime was ever added to the Sergei Magnitsky Law. It may be that this will change in the coming days. We don't know, but we had the first step taken after so much inaction, apparently.

Are there changes you would like to see to Canada's sanctions regime to strengthen it and give parliamentarians more of a voice in being able to push forward names on the list?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is really high quality testimony we're receiving from all three of you. Given your thoughtful and biting critique, I now find it no surprise that the Liberal chair made a last-minute change to the agenda that limits the time we have with you, though it is unfortunate.

Mr. Kolga, you mentioned the ability of committees to be able to nominate people for sanctions.

I want to note, for your information and for the record, that Bill C-281, tabled by my colleague, Philip Lawrence, the international human rights act, contains some of those provisions. We will be debating that bill in Parliament this fall. Hopefully it will be coming to us here at this committee soon.

It's been reported recently, as well, by CBC that the value of frozen sanctions in Canada has dropped in recent months to suggest the possibility that some people have been allowed to sell off assets.

Do you have any reflections or information about how it is that the value of frozen assets under sanction would somehow be dropping?

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

moved for leave to introduce 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.

Madam Speaker, to thunderous applause, I may say, it is a privilege and an honour to rise in the House to introduce my private member's bill, the international human rights act.

I would like to start by thanking the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, our shadow minister for international development, for his support in creating, drafting and seconding this important piece of legislation.

The legislation would accomplish four key objectives.

First, it would impose certain reporting requirements on the Minister of Foreign Affairs, including to produce a list of prisoners of conscience whose behalf the government is working on.

Second, it would impose a requirement on the Minister of Foreign Affairs to respond within 40 days to a report submitted by a parliamentary committee that recommends the imposition of Magnitsky sanctions.

Third, it would make amendments to the Broadcasting Act that prohibit the issue, amendment or renewal of a licence to a broadcaster that may be vulnerable to a foreign national or entity declared of committing genocide or subject to sanctions under Sergei Magnitsky Law.

Fourth, it would create a prohibition against investments into companies that construct, develop or transport cluster munitions as defined by the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act.

I would like to thank the members of the House in advance for their support and for making the world a bit of a better place.

(Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)