Foreign Affairs Committee on March 25th, 2021

[Peter Lundy]

To answer you specifically, we've seen from them some movement in terms of, for example, their position in dealing with Rohingya issues, as part of an effort, I think, to acknowledge that that has been a weakness for them in the past. In terms of their commentary on a federal state, for the most part, the main line of communication has been to respect the outcome of the November 2020 election where, as Paul mentioned earlier, they had an overwhelming majority.

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

I'll just state, from my perspective—and for the benefit of those who are watching—that the commitment of and pursuit of ethnic reconciliation as well as the protection of full rights for the Rohingya are key issues going forward. I would hope that our advocacy for democracy includes as well an advocacy for that kind of full rights recognition and pluralism.

I want to ask now about the sanctions mechanisms that we use. I recall a meeting we had at this committee on the situation in Belarus, and it was explained at the time that the Special Economic Measures Act had been used as opposed to the Magnitsky Act, because the Special Economic Measures Act is for entities whereas the Magnitsky Act is for individuals. It seems to me that in this case, though, the government has opted for Special Economic Measures Act provisions to be used targeting individuals.

Why, in this particular case, when we're talking about holding individuals within the military accountable for their crimes, have we used SEMA as opposed to Magnitsky?

[Paul Thoppil]

Chair, if I may, I'm going to ask Cory to respond.

[Cory Anderson, Director, Sanctions Policy and Operations Coordination Division, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development]

Certainly. I'd be happy to.

We have focused our sanctions in this latest round of announcements on February 18 by using SEMA because we did have existing sanctions in place via SEMA, and SEMA does allow us to sanction not only entities but individuals and entities once it is clear that there are connections to the state through a grave breach of international security, which is the reason why we had our SEMA sanctions on Myanmar in the first place.

The coup allowed us to add these nine individuals on February 18, as a result of our existing regulations.

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

Right, but the Magnitsky Act deals with violations of human rights specifically as opposed to the peace and security piece, and it just seems to me it is the more natural vehicle for targeting individuals for gross violations of human rights.

We haven't applied Magnitsky sanctions to Min Aung Hlaing or more than, I think, one individual—that's dating back to 2018. Why the reluctance to use Magnitsky sanctions? Is there something we're missing about that tool that means the government is always opting for SEMA as opposed to Magnitsky?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

A brief answer, please.

[Cory Anderson]

No, not at all. It's simply that SEMA allows us to target both individuals and entities, which the focus going forward may be on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much, Mr. Genuis. That's your time.

The next intervention goes to Dr. Fry for six minutes, please.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I understand that everyone is concerned about the arbitrary detentions and all of the human rights violations and democratic values violations that are going on. They say the democratic election was not recognized, but it was, and they're arbitrarily detaining, they're stopping peaceful protests. All of these are actions that are undemocratic and fly in the face of the principles of democracy.

What I want to talk about is that, in fact, even under a different administration, we saw a clear sense of genocide occurring with regard to the Rohingya. How are the Rohingya being affected now with a new so-called administration and its military behaviour and its democratic violations? Is there still continuing to be a genocide against Rohingya? Is this still happening? Whatever we do, it seems to me that if we change governments or change administrations, this is going to be a continuing problem. How do we address that?

[Paul Thoppil]

Mr. Chair, I think the recent actions of the Tatmadaw have all but eliminated near- to medium-term prospects for safe return of the Rohingya to their homes. As you know, we continue to provide development assistance to the poorest, the most vulnerable in Myanmar, including the Rohingya. We are also continuing our support to the Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh. We will continue to press, at all levels, for humanitarian access.

As you may know, the funding for Canada's initial three-year response to the 2017 Rohingya crisis ends on March 31, 2021, and the government will announce next steps in due course.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

I didn't really get the answer I was looking for. Right now the Rohingya are stateless people. They are a people in exile. They're not necessarily as happily tolerated anymore by Bangladesh as they used to be, so what are we going to do about these people? Are we going to open up our country to them? Obviously going back home is not an option, so what are we going to do about the people themselves? That's a question I am trying to answer.

Is China involved in this no-Rohingya piece of genocide? What is China's position on the Rohingya? China is obviously a neighbour. China and Russia are getting very much more involved in regional conflicts around the world, not next-door neighbours anymore, and they both tend to be violating democratic principles and human rights in their interventions.

Are we going to do something about those two interfering entities? Are we going to look at sanctions against them? Are we going to get like-minded people to deal with Russia and China particularly? I know that in the OSCE region there's a great sense that we need to do something about these two interfering bodies who love to talk about sovereignty but think it's okay to interfere in other countries' sovereignty whenever they feel like it.

My concern is that this is not going to get any better. What are we going to do about the stateless, homeless, exiled people living in abject conditions somewhere else? What are we going to do about China's and Russia's continuing and escalating interference in Africa and everywhere else where there is regional conflict?

[Paul Thoppil]

With regard to the Rohingya, repatriation should take place only when conditions allow.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Obviously.

[Paul Thoppil]

Right? It should be safe, sustainable, dignified and voluntary, and we do not believe that these conditions can be met under present circumstances.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Yes, I agree with you on that, but what are we going to do with them?

[Paul Thoppil]

Any consideration of potential repatriation needs to involve the UNHCR, and we are in discussions with them as we speak.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

I'm sorry, but I don't have a lot of time and I really want to ask the question I am asking.

Yes, they cannot be repatriated. We understand that, but can you tell me, what do we intend to do about the plight of the Rohingya where they are, stateless, homeless and living in awful conditions? Are we going to join with like-minded people and find homes for them in Canada and in other developed nations that may want to feel that somewhere along the way we can't have generations of these people being left in the conditions that they're in?

That's what I want to talk about. I'm agreeing with you that they can't go back home, so what are we going to do about them per se?

[Paul Thoppil]

As I indicated earlier, we have been pursuing a three-year response to the 2017 Rohingya crisis. We have provided advice on next steps to the government in terms of how to support the Rohingya on an ongoing basis and factoring in the coup. We are awaiting a decision by the government that will—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Mr. Thoppil, I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to interrupt for a second.

Dr. Fry is almost out of time, but we have also an interpretation issue. There's still a technology problem. Interpretation is not able to follow, and I'm wondering if there's anything else at our disposal to try to get your sound back up to the quality that we need. Would you like to either restate your answer or defer to one of your colleagues?

Madam Clerk, is there anything on the microphone position that would help us or is that not an option?

Mr. Thoppil, could you try to restate slowly and clearly? Maybe we can get interpretation. If not, perhaps one of your colleagues could answer.

Go ahead, please.

[Paul Thoppil]

I will ask my colleague Peter to reiterate what I said. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much.

[Peter Lundy]

Thank you, Chair.

Just for the purposes, then, of the record, Paul indicated that our three-year strategy was coming to an end at the end of this month but that we have provided advice to the government on the next phase of that strategy to support the Rohingya people, and we are awaiting the government's decision on that.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Excuse me, is that meaning our government or the Tatmadaw? I'm not sure which government you're referring to.

[Peter Lundy]

I think I can clarify. Yes, we provided advice to our ministers and are awaiting decisions.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Good. Thank you.