Evidence of meeting #27 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was measures.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bob Nault
Thank you, Mr. Saini.
We'll go to Mr. Levitt.
We're just finishing our first round, colleagues, and because this is important topic, we'll carry on to the second round.
We'll go to Mr. Levitt next, and then Mr. Kmiec.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Levitt Liberal York Centre, ON
Good afternoon.
Canada has a reputation as a defender of human rights around the world. The concern has been raised in here, and I share it, that our current sanctions regime lacks both the legal effectiveness and the enforcement capacity to hold accountable individual human rights abusers.
You heard mention earlier about the Magnitsky legislation that was adopted in the U.S. Congress. That's something that has been raised in the Canadian context as well, not just with Russia in mind but globally. I'm looking for your suggestions. I'm looking to hear from you. If our goal is to be able to hold to account human rights abusers in other jurisdictions, how can we go about doing that? What suggestions do you have on how we can have something with teeth that will allow us to hold these people accountable?
4:35 p.m.
Assistant Professor, University of Manitoba, and Director of the Centre for Security Intelligence and Defence Studies, Carleton University, As an Individual
It's difficult because if the human rights abuses are happening somewhere else, unless they've violated some Canadian law, it's very difficult to try and enact some sort of punishment on them. I would say in the case, often, of human rights, rather than sanctions, it's things like continuing to accept foreign students, so that we educate a whole other generation on what it is to respect human rights and they take those lessons back with them. Then it's a change that happens internally.
I know there is this desire to punish transgressors, but often if the end goal is to improve human rights, sanctions are not necessarily the right tool, especially as Canada applies them. I think there are other things that Canada can do that will give that effect.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Levitt Liberal York Centre, ON
I don't think it's the only tool in our tool kit in terms of our engagement on human rights globally and in Canada, but certainly being able to hold individuals accountable internationally is something that is a concern.
4:35 p.m.
Assistant Professor, University of Manitoba, and Director of the Centre for Security Intelligence and Defence Studies, Carleton University, As an Individual
As a professor, I have access to hundreds of students. I think people like me have an intangible effect on things like, what it is to understand human rights. Sue? I don't know how to answer this question.
4:35 p.m.
Adjunct Senior Fellow, Center for a New American Security, As an Individual
Increasingly when using UN sanctions, when we did the assessment in terms of impact and effectiveness, human rights are not commonly the primary purpose, but they are a purpose for numerous sanctions regimes that the UN implements. In fact, there has been an evolution in which we've actually gotten more specific with regard to human rights abuses. Sexual and gender-based violence has become a basis for designations. Working with, for example, NGOs in the area, providing information to UN panels of experts, to national governments, they can provide that kind of information to target individuals who are violating the sanctions.
I think it's very important, but it's not easy, and it's not the sole...we tend to focus on sanctions because it's something that we can do, that governments can put in place, but there are a variety of different things that can be done. I think it's a problem when we expect too much of sanctions. To the extent that what we can do is to work multilaterally to get as much in UN Security Council resolutions, requiring attention to human rights abuses, and then follow up with implementation, I think that's important. Again, it goes back to implementation. There are provisions in UN Security Council resolutions, which many member states don't implement, so at some point you need to provide the capacity to help them implement. Ultimately, it's not a popular thing with many governments, but if they're not implementing then you should think about secondary sanctions.
Again, it's not a popular notion with a number of governments, but I think that it's hard to get to the point of secondary sanctions, though, because you don't know whether governments are not complying because it's a lack of capacity and ability or it's willful violations. If we're really serious about implementation, then there has to be enforcement, not just putting out what the objectives are and letting people do as they will.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Levitt Liberal York Centre, ON
I would just follow up and say the concern, I suppose, with the UN on this is occasionally we get countries that will veto or have their way in terms of not implementing, and that—of course—is an obstacle we face in terms of.... Again, that's one of the reasons we're looking at bolstering the Canadian sanctions regime to allow us to be able to address some of those situations.
4:35 p.m.
Adjunct Senior Fellow, Center for a New American Security, As an Individual
I would also commend to you this High Level Review of UN Sanctions that took place and was released last November. There is a review process which is starting this year. There were 150— I know it sounds daunting—recommendations of things that could be done at the UN international organizations related to sanctions, member states, and with the private sector to look at implementation. I would urge you to take a look at some of those things because I think some of them might be useful.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bob Nault
Thank you.
We're a little over time, so we'll keep it tight colleagues.
Mr. Kmiec, you have five minutes.
October 19th, 2016 / 4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Thank you both for coming in.
I want to talk about the U.S. Magnitsky Act. I'm glad my colleague brought it up. Madam Eckert, you had brought it up briefly in your opening statement, but you didn't really get into it. Has it been a success in the United States? What's the opinion of policy experts there?
4:40 p.m.
Adjunct Senior Fellow, Center for a New American Security, As an Individual
I don't know if I could characterize the opinion of policy experts. It is congressional legislation that the executive branch is implementing. What's the purpose of it? Is it going to coerce the individuals? I'm not sure that we've seen that it has been particularly effective in coercing. It is serving the purpose of stigmatizing those individuals. I think that's important. It's sending a signal that the kind of activities they're pursuing are inconsistent with norms.
I would prefer to get back to you if you wouldn't mind. I know the listings and I know it's being implemented, but I haven't really looked into its effectiveness. The work we did looked at the implementation of UN sanctions in terms of impact and effectiveness. Again, it goes to the purpose. I think constraining can be very effective in signalling or stigmatizing individuals and I think those designations fall into that latter category.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
I want to talk about coercive behaviour versus the deprivation of resources. You talked about which one was the most effective. Professor Charron, you might also want to comment on exclusion as a form of punishment, as one tool among many that Canada could use. There could be travel bans, the exclusion of individuals from participation in the Canadian economy, or from being allowed to enter the country. Shouldn't these restrictions be part of the tools we use to deal with criminals from overseas or persons we have vast policy differences with, because of their human rights abuses in other countries? Exclusion is a form of punishment but also an indicator to other countries of the social or political norms we want others to accept. Shouldn't exclusion be part of what we do?
4:40 p.m.
Assistant Professor, University of Manitoba, and Director of the Centre for Security Intelligence and Defence Studies, Carleton University, As an Individual
If you mean by “exclusion”, preventing them from entering Canada, that is definitely possible. I want to link this to your question about the Magnitsky Act. One of the unintended consequences of doing both of those too often and to too many people is that you're actually legitimizing these individuals. In some cases, it might be a badge of honour to be banned from entering Canada; it might give them more legitimacy back home. We have to think about not giving them a platform by doing that. Yes, we can ban individuals from coming to Canada, but we cannot ban Canadians from re-entering. It is a possibility and we do that. Our list tends to always match that of the U.S. and the EU.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
I was going to talk about those unintended consequences. I was conferring with my colleague before. We were talking about when some of the Iran sanctions were starting to be taken off. We asked a question to the government and they wouldn't say which of those sanctions were being taken away. We actually had to check with the United States list, which was easier to find. We compared the two and then we kind of understood what was going on. I asked the RCMP if there was an easy way for business to find a list of all the sanctions in Canada, and they said they didn't have that information available. Is this something that business has been asking you for? Is this something that's commonly requested?
4:40 p.m.
Assistant Professor, University of Manitoba, and Director of the Centre for Security Intelligence and Defence Studies, Carleton University, As an Individual
I would think the number of business bloggers out there who provide information to businesses about updates on Canadian sanctions is an indication that there isn't a go-to list that they can use. There's a lot of chat on the internet, “What about this? What about this update?”
For example, when we applied sanctions against Russia, almost every other day we were updating the list. This means that every other day a bank has to go through all of their accounts again. The same was true for businesses. We wanted to show that we were serious about Russia, but by doing it piecemeal we put a lot more burden on banks and individuals, so that it might have been better to get one list and release it. I appreciate that we wanted to show Russia how serious we were about its acts. However, the unintended consequence was that we put more burden on Canadian banks and businesses than we did on Russia.
4:45 p.m.
Adjunct Senior Fellow, Center for a New American Security, As an Individual
I would just add that I think sanctions have been a boon for lawyers and for consultants. My own personal view, both when I was on Capitol Hill and when I was in the executive branch, is that people shouldn't have to pay to make sure they're complying with the law. There should be an obligation on regulators to be clear about what the regulations are or, if there are questions, to be able to respond to the questions and to provide that kind of guidance. The more complicated it has gotten, the less the executive branch has been able to respond in some of these circumstances, even in the U.S.
Firms go to great expense—I'm talking millions and millions of dollars—to comply. They employ software. You've talked about a consolidated list. If you go to the software companies that do this kind of thing, there's World-Check, there's Thomson Reuters, and there's even SWIFT tools and utilities. They're out there, but you have to pay for them. As for what they do, they're updated on a daily basis and that's what the financial institutions use to screen against transactions, but again, think about the volume of transactions that are going through messaging systems in terms of financial transfers. It's quite voluminous. Every time there is a hit against one of them, that means a person has to look at it and decide what to do about it.
I think we have to be aware that these kinds of tools, these foreign policy tools, while important, are not cost free. In essence, what we're doing is downloading the cost onto the private sector. As a former regulator, I believe that it's the job of the regulatory system to provide that kind of clarity. It shouldn't have to be that you go out and hire a whole team, but unfortunately, that's what has happened in recent years.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bob Nault
Thank you.
Now we're going to the last question, with Mr. Fragiskatos for five minutes, and then we'll wrap this up.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Mr. Chair, I know that my colleague is interested in these issues as well, and I think he's been patiently waiting, so I'll defer my time to Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, an associate member of the committee.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Fragiskatos.
I'd like to follow up on my colleague's questions around targeted sanctions in regard to individuals, such as the Magnitsky sanctions. In a sister committee during the summer, we heard some horrific testimony of extrajudicial arrests and torture in Crimea and in Russian-controlled Donetsk and Luhansk. In one case, these extrajudicial arrests, the torture, and the killings were done to terrorize the local population. In the case of Crimea, the witness was transported to Russia for a show trial. The torture was a means to extract false testimony against a Ukrainian documentary maker and his colleague.
When we listened to this testimony, it became clear that names could be named. They named officials who engaged in this torture. They named FSB officials, the Russian intelligence agency officials. In certain cases, they were directing the torture, and in some cases were engaged in the actual torture.
We know that Professor Eckert will get back to us in regard to the effectiveness of sanctions that target human rights abusers very directly, but I'd like to put this question to Dr. Charron. For travel bans and asset freezes in cases such as that of Russia, where you have not only a re-emerging dictatorship, but also a kleptocracy, with these officials often travelling to the west and their family members travelling to the west—often, they have significant assets in the west—my question is, would sanctions not be effective?
It seems, by the reaction from the Russian side, that these individually targeted sanctions against torturers, jailers, and prosecutors and judges in show trials appear to be effective. One of the things the witnesses made clear was that they wanted to see those individuals who had committed these horrors against them named publicly, and in a way that would actually have an effect so that they couldn't hide in those shadows.
Professor Charron, back in 2005, you wrote a paper called “Canada's 3T's of non-Trade Sanctions' Employment: Tertiary, Timid and Tepid”. These seem to be the opposite, these very targeted sanctions. Do you still agree that Canada's sanctions regime is tertiary, timid, and tepid, as you wrote back in 2005? Is this not an effective tool based upon what we've seen so far with Russia?
4:50 p.m.
Assistant Professor, University of Manitoba, and Director of the Centre for Security Intelligence and Defence Studies, Carleton University, As an Individual
First of all, that article was written over 10 years ago and it was in reference to UN sanctions and Canada's application of them. Those three Ts apply to how long it takes us to go from getting a UN resolution to actually creating the regulations. If the sanctions were against Africa, it could take 100 days to put in place the regulations. If they were against Iraq, we could do it instantaneously. What I was pointing out is the inconsistency of the machinery behind our application of sanctions.
I think what you're describing is reprehensible. Of course, we can only sanction assets that have a Canadian connection. We could certainly put individuals on a list to prevent them from coming into Canada, but the naming and shaming of these individuals is the work that Amnesty International and other human rights organizations do, day in, day out. There are other ways that Canada could support making sure that this practice of taking people and not giving them due process...but I don't think Canada's sanctions are necessarily going to stop that. I know that's not what you want to hear.