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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[The Speaker, 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.

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.

Crisis in Sudan

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

moved:

That this House do now adjourn.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank your office for granting us the opportunity to have this emergency debate on the tragic situation unfolding in Sudan.

I also want to thank all the members who are here tonight. I know the hour is late and there are many issues competing for our attention, but I think we all understand how important it is to be engaged with global events in general and to recognize the nature of the crisis in Sudan in particular. Indifference to global events undermines our own security. Indeed, the best security for our freedom here at home is our investment in the cause of freedom everywhere and our willingness to stand in solidarity with those who are struggling, while also learning the lessons that we can from their experience.

I want to start my remarks this evening with a brief summary of the situation in Sudan, as well as share some reflections on key lessons that we can learn and the actions that we should be taking in response.

In December 2018, I connected with members of Edmonton's Sudanese community who wanted more support from parliamentarians for a nascent democratic revolution in their country of origin. Honestly, when I first heard from them I was surprised at the idea of a democratic revolution in Sudan. At the time, Sudan had been ruled for 30 years by the same dictator, Omar al-Bashir.

Notably, al-Bashir was indicted for genocide by the International Criminal Court while he was still in office. Indeed, he was a terrible leader. Instead of helping Sudan realize its incredible potential, he divided the country, committed numerous unspeakable atrocities and sought to redirect any of the country's wealth towards himself and his family. The country is still dealing with the legacy of his horrific, divisive and violent rule.

However, in late 2018 and early 2019, the people of Sudan boldly took to the streets to demand change. The heroes of this revolution risked everything to demand the recognition of their inherent human dignity and human rights. Human rights do not come from government. They are inherent in human beings, which is why we call them “human” rights.

In many countries around the world, we have seen these kinds of heroic, civilian-led democratic revolutions where, incredibly, under conditions of unspeakable terror, a critical mass of people take to the streets in protest and succeed in overthrowing a dictator.

Many members are today following the “Women, Life, Freedom” movement in Iran, and I think there are many similarities between that movement in Iran today and what happened in Sudan in 2018 and 2019. There are many other parallels that we could speak about.

During the revolution in Sudan, I also had a chance to meet with members of the Sudanese community in St. Catharines, along with then Conservative candidate Krystina Waler. Krystina is Ukrainian and was involved in supporting the revolution of dignity, which ousted Yanukovych in Ukraine. I recall how we discussed the similarities between those democratic revolutions and how diaspora communities here in Canada can support those fighting for democracy in their countries of origin.

This kind of comparative political discussion that can happen in Canada among diaspora communities who are working to support justice and freedom in their countries of origin are indeed some of my favourite conversations to be a part of, with Canadians from different cultural backgrounds sharing insight about how to support these kinds of freedom movements in their countries of origin.

There are often other connections, speaking of the revolution in Sudan and efforts in Iran. One of the grievances that was involved in the revolution of Sudan was the fact that people from Sudan, child soldiers, were being sent to fight in the conflict in Yemen, which is the result of the negative influence in the region associated with Iranian regime.

We can learn so much, and we can learn from listening to and working with diaspora communities. Those communities also engage and learn from each other's experience. In Ukraine, Iran, Georgia and Sudan, we have seen citizen-led democratic movements that have led to dramatic, earth-shattering change. These movements have happened because unarmed women and men have been willing to stand in front of tanks and say no.

Of course, the success of such movements is not inevitable, and there are often setbacks, such as the brutal massacre of civilians in Tiananmen Square and the failure of the Syrian revolution to deliver democratic change. These and other examples show that those who take to the streets for democratic change cannot know what the outcome will be. There was no inevitability in the course of history. People can only do their part to try to steer the future of their country towards freedom and justice.

These movements show us that, while there is no inevitable trajectory to history, there is a universal aspiration for justice and freedom that reflects the universal nature of the human creature. We as human beings are meaning-seeking, justice-seeking and freedom-seeking creatures, whether in Canada, Sudan or anywhere else.

I was inspired by the stories I heard in 2018 and 2019. I was inspired by the interim success achieved by Sudan's democracy movement at ousting Omar al-Bashir. However, the struggle has continued. Following his removal, the people have not yet been able to realize their desire for truly civilian-led government, justice for past atrocities and effective democratic rule-of-law-oriented institutions.

The challenges Sudan continues to face demonstrate two universal truths. One is that people, regardless of history or cultural context, aspire to live in genuine freedom. The second is that history matters and that a people cannot make a perfect, complete break with their past. There is no good way to wipe the slate completely clear. There will always be transitional struggles to build new institutions out of the shells of old.

In this case, one of the defining challenges is that the Sudanese military had created a kind of parallel military force during the period of al-Bashir's rule, called the RSF. The RSF was a kind of organizational successor to the Janjaweed militia, associated with horrific atrocities in Darfur and elsewhere. Both the Sudanese military and the RSF have been responsible for horrific violence. There are no so-called good guys between these two military factions, but the legacy of the creation of this parallel military structure is that rivalry has grown up between them and between those who lead them.

At the hands of both the RSF and the Sudanese military, the people of Sudan have been the victims. At times these violent groups have joined forces to suppress the Sudanese people, but today they are violently opposing each other, and the people of Sudan are caught in the crossfire. Either way, the Sudanese people are the heroes of this story, and they have also been the victims as a result of violence from both of these competing rival military factions.

Just to back up a bit again, in 2019, the Sudanese community that I met with here in Canada wanted us to be more actively engaged with events in Sudan by expressing our support for their movement, calling for freedom and democracy and indeed emphasizing the universality of those ideas, or at least the aspiration for them. I have found universally that those involved in these movements feel that expressions of support from parliamentarians and governments make a real difference. Of course, there are other tools we can use, such as the use of sanctions to punish human rights abusers and deter future abuses. However, at a minimum, paying attention to and expressing support for these movements matters. It matters to the people who are involved in them, and it matters to their supporters throughout the country and around the world. Our governments and those of us here in Parliament must always be willing to have the courage to express our support for these democratic movements.

In the spring of 2019, in the midst of protests, al-Bashir was ousted from power and a transitional military council was created. When protesters demanded a complete transition to civilian rule, the military, along with the RSF, undertook a horrific massacre known as the “Khartoum massacre”, during which over 100 protesters were killed. This was followed by a renewed negotiation between the democracy movement and the military, which eventually led to a temporary power-sharing agreement.

I think the challenge has always been, though, that it is hard to have a functioning power-sharing transitional mechanism when the military refuses to change and refuses to be accountable for its crimes and to recognize the inherent right of people to choose their own leaders. The military seized power again in 2021 and has not stopped refusing accountability or hurting the Sudanese people. Sudanese democratic leaders want to see the creation of one normal military under civilian direction and accountable for its actions, not two militaries that are accountable to no one and that are fighting each other.

Sudan's civilian leaders need to continue the work of transition, but they need our support. We need to respond to the current crisis of seeming civil war between the country's two militaries, but in the long run we need to support the Sudanese people in every way we can as they seek to finish the work they started in December 2018. I am calling on the government, as it responds to the current crisis, to not forget about the long term and to engage with the Sudanese people and the Sudanese diaspora here in Canada to find and use the tools available to indeed help the people of this country complete the work they have started.

As I said earlier, there are a number of key lessons. We can see that there is a universal aspiration for freedom and democracy that exists regardless of place, time and cultural context. We also see that history matters, because the past shapes the kinds of interests and institutions that have to be managed as part of any transition. It will be up to the people of Sudan to figure out how to walk that road, how to struggle forward in the midst of all these challenges, to try to realize their just and right aspirations. However, those of us here in Canada have both an interest in that and a moral obligation to do what we can to help them along that path.

In the current situation, as violence has broken out between these two rival military organizations and as civilians are caught in the crossfire, Canada has taken steps to evacuate Canadian diplomatic staff and other Canadians who are present in this country. I look forward to hearing updates from the government during tonight's emergency debate about those efforts. This debate is important because it gives parliamentarians the opportunity to speak about these issues, but it also provides the government with the opportunity to give a necessary update to the House about the efforts that are under way. We will expect continuing updates from the government as these efforts unfold. We must continue to be engaged with the events in Sudan, but our staff obviously must be able to do so from a place of safety.

I want to clearly highlight for the government as well that we believe it has an obligation to support any locally engaged staff, to the greatest extent possible. Media reports last summer suggested that the Government of Canada did not properly inform locally engaged staff in Ukraine about the risks to them, even though those staff were likely at a much greater risk because of their work for Canada. In Afghanistan, Canada failed to effectively assist all of those who worked with Canadian troops, even though we should have had enough time to plan and prepare. In this case, of course, we acknowledge that Canada has had much less in the way of lead time, but we want to clearly underline that from our perspective, there is a critical importance for Canada to live up to its obligations to support and assist locally engaged staff.

In the time I have left, I want to highlight a number of related issues that I think are important for the attention of the House as well.

The first is the role of the Wagner Group. The Wagner Group is officially a Russian private military organization, but in effect, it is a tool of foreign policy for the Putin regime. We have seen how the Wagner Group has been used and involved in horrific atrocities in Ukraine, but perhaps less known is the Wagner Group's role in various contexts in Africa. The Wagner Group has been hired by various states in Africa to be involved in internal conflicts or suppression of militant groups or terrorist groups in those countries. However, in the process, the Wagner Group has itself been complicit in horrific atrocities in various African countries. This has, at the same time, involved the extension of the Russian government's influence in those contexts.

I am deeply concerned about the Wagner Group and the way it is responsible for not only horrific violence but also extending the geostrategic influence of the Russian government and broadening its reach in certain contexts.

It is important to note, therefore, that while the rest of the world is talking about how to support the Sudanese people and address the violence that is undermining the democratic aspirations of the Sudanese people, the Russian foreign minister is effectively trying to sell the services of the Wagner Group to various interests in these conflicts. He has come out with a statement saying that authorities have a right to use the services of the Wagner Group. This underlines, again, the horrific mentality we see from the Russian regime, but it should also underline for us the risks of the Wagner Group and the way it is both responsible for atrocities and involved in the potential extension of the Putin regime's influence in Africa and elsewhere.

Recognizing some of these risks, I am glad the foreign affairs committee is proceeding with a study on the actions of the Wagner Group. I also think it is important for the government to act on a unanimous motion that was passed in this House calling for the listing of the Wagner Group as a terrorist organization. All parties supported that. It was unanimous. Our party has also, directly in statements, called for the listing of the Wagner Group as a terrorist organization, recognizing its involvement in the genocide in Ukraine and the role it is playing in various other contexts. We should be firm about recognizing that this is a terrorist group involved in terrorist activity. Part of what we can do to contribute to the movement toward peace and security not only in Sudan but also in other troubled contexts in the region is to list the Wagner Group as a terrorist organization.

Therefore, I want to use this opportunity as well, recognizing the statement of the Russian foreign minister, to say that the government should act swiftly to list the Wagner Group as a terrorist organization. These will certainly be questions we will be emphasizing during the foreign affairs committee's study on the role of the Wagner Group.

I also want to say that, as the government thinks about various aspects of our foreign policy, I am hopeful to see the swift passage of Bill C-281, which is currently being debated at the foreign affairs committee. This bill would significantly strengthen the Government of Canada's obligations around responding to human rights issues. It would create, for instance, a parliamentary trigger whereby a committee could recommend that certain individuals be sanctioned, and the government would be obliged to respond to those recommendations. It also requires the government to provide an annual report to Parliament on its work advancing human rights. Tools like these, which strengthen accountability to Parliament around human rights issues, would be very useful for us as parliamentarians, as we would be able to drive the government to make a stronger response to human rights challenges around the world, in Sudan and elsewhere.

Finally, I want to use this opportunity to make the point that Canada should be strengthening its engagement with Africa. I see Africa, in general, as being critical to our future. If we look at this demographically, there is dramatic population growth in Africa while we are seeing population declines in other parts of the world. Africa has immense potential and a young population, and we should be engaging the various peoples of Africa to a greater extent. It seems to me that sometimes when we see these kinds of freedom and democracy movements happening in one continent versus another, they get less or more attention. I want to see all of us, not only parliamentarians but Canadian society in general, recognize the importance and potential of Africa and the universality of its aspirations to live in peace, freedom and democracy. We should strengthen our engagement with it.

The government recently released an Indo-Pacific strategy, and shortly thereafter a colleague and I wrote an op-ed emphasizing the need for the government to develop a strong Africa strategy that responds to its potential, recognizes the need for greater engagement and recognizes the efforts of hostile regimes to strengthen their engagement and influence in Africa, which underlines the importance of our engagement and presence there.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I want to thank you again for granting this emergency debate and for giving us the opportunity to talk about this important situation in Sudan and underline the fact that all of us should be deeply inspired by the heroic courage we have seen from people in countries like Sudan who are standing up and risking their lives to fight for their fundamental human rights, things that we in Canada often take for granted. The people in Sudan, Iran and other such contexts are risking their lives to fight for the recognition of their basic human dignity, their fundamental human rights. The least we can do is pay attention, engage and support them, in the short and long term, in that journey.

We need to hear from the government on what it is doing to respond to the immediate crisis and assist Canadians and others with connections to Canada, like locally engaged staff, in the midst of this crisis, and also, in a more long-term way, what it is doing to support the democratic aspirations, freedom movement and realization of the full aims of the revolution that was started in 2018. It may be a long road ahead, but we need to be there to stand with and support the people of Sudan.

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.