Foreign Affairs Committee on March 23rd, 2023

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

Thank you very much.

I think your question, and correct me if I'm wrong, was with respect to the moving of assets with respect to the implications of the Magnitsky sanctions. Is that correct, or is it more than that?

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Overall, yes.

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

Okay.

First off, I would say that with respect to a private member's bill we have to be mindful of scope. We individual parliamentarians are not governments. Would I like to do more? Sure, there's a lot more we could do, but within the private members' scope, I think the ones, by and large, that have been most effective have been somewhat smaller in scope. We wanted to make that impact.

The second point is that there is a huge win in just awareness, in just the labelling of Magnitsky sanctions. Sure, this government has had a terrible track record of actually seizing any of the assets, and I would hope that future governments would do better. I agree with that 110%.

Just the fact that now we are going to bring them in front of the foreign affairs committee if they don't impose them is, I think, a little bit of an irritant to any government. It may one day be a Conservative government, and it may be some of the members on the other side who are bringing this against a Conservative government.

[A voice]

Or an NDP government....

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

It could be an NDP government—yes, exactly.

[A voice]

Or a Bloc government....

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

Yes, but what I heard over and over again from the international human rights community was the fact that they want more awareness. Just the bringing of this forward raises awareness.

Certainly, I would be happy to work with you and discuss with the Bloc ways we can be more effective at actually seizing some of these assets and not just making paper tigers.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Officials from Global Affairs Canada raised another concern. Indeed, generally speaking, sanctions, including those which would be imposed under the Sergei Magnitsky Law, are adopted in collaboration with our allies. Yet your bill doesn't say anything about that.

How can we be sure that our actions will make a difference if we join forces with other countries who share our values?

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

I agree 100% that we need to coordinate that. As to how we would put that in legislation, I am not exactly sure. It would probably be beyond the scope of a private member's bill, but you will see that around the world various other countries actually have parliamentary triggers to Magnitsky sanctions. They can actually trigger them without the executive even being involved. We're just taking a step halfway there. As I said, I think it's consistent with the scope of a private member's bill to have the government report back to us within 40 days as to why they have not.

It could, and perhaps might, enable parliamentarians from around the world to start coordinating this as well and talking to counterparts around the world about putting in Magnitsky sanctions. I agree with you that we need greater collaboration. We need to be aware that this is a global world in order to hold some of these violators accountable. We need greater global co-operation. I agree 110%.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

We next go to Ms. McPherson for six minutes.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, Mr. Lawrence, for coming here today. I will say it again: I think you are an NDP in hiding.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Much of what's in this bill I firmly agree with. I think there are some ways in which we could bring some amendments forward and perhaps strengthen it.

One question I have, which I've raised with you in the past, is that we don't have a government-wide international human rights strategy. We really don't have a baseline with which to evaluate whether the government has done a good job on some of this. Would you welcome that, or would you think that it might be something that would strengthen our ability, I guess, to hold whatever government of the day to account?

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

I would certainly welcome those discussions.

I would like to personally thank you for your collaboration, support and help with the legislation—even if you have, just now, ended any possibility I had of ever serving in cabinet.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Okay. Wonderful.

With regard to another thing you talked about, I do take your point that you've spoken to many families about the need to say the names and to publish the names. Of course, many families is not all families, and we do need to be conscious of that.

I've worked in international development for decades. I know that the way we protect folks in Colombia and the different countries I've worked in is really important for their safety, their lives and their ability to come forward or their even wanting to come forward if there isn't that protection.

I'm just wondering, as we want more information and we want there to be some information on the prisoners. Would you be open to having some individuals at risk be made public and others be kept private, or to have more of an anonymous list of prisoners worldwide who are detained rather than this?

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

I'm open to those discussions, as I talked about a bit.

I'm sure, Heather, that you'd agree with me. My overarching concern would be the victims and the victims' families. If the bill were to be amended in such a way that victims' families would have the right to not have it published, I'm okay. That makes sense.

What I am concerned about—and this could be with a Liberal, NDP or Conservative government—is that there are always lots of priorities a government has when negotiating with other nations and countries. I just don't want it to be easy for them to not publish this because it's convenient for a trade negotiation or convenient or expedient in another way.

While I'm very happy to have discussions about small changes to the bill, I'm just very protective of the families and the individuals, the prisoners of conscience who were held abroad. I think you'd be naive to say that this hasn't happened on probably a regular basis for probably hundreds of years, if not more, where individual rights are traded off for national priorities. I think it's a great opportunity for Canada to take a stand that individual rights are important and human rights are important. We shouldn't just trade them away quickly to get a trade deal done or for some other national priority.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

That's extremely well said. I've said time and time again that we cannot substitute trade relationships for our diplomatic and human rights relationships.

I think it would be important that this list contain information on what Canada is doing to advocate for detained Canadian citizens. I also right now think about dual citizens. I think many of us are seized with the horrific work that's being done by the Parliament of Uganda right now, and the risks towards members of the SOGIE community. It's horrendous.

Human rights organizations and families of Canadian citizens detained abroad have repeatedly expressed concern that they're not getting adequate information or communication from the government about their family members' cases. We've heard that time and time again. I think everyone in this room could list a number of people whom we would like to get more information on. We've seen this in many consular cases.

Would you be open to an amendment that would require the government, in an annual report, to describe the efforts of the minister and what the minister has done to improve consistency, transparency and accountability to families?

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

I'm certainly open to those discussions as well.

Not to digress too far, but in conversation, I had the absolute privilege to talk to some of the families of some absolutely incredibly brave women and men throughout the world. Some of the struggles they have faced, like you said, are in terms of getting basic information. Like I said, I think Canada has the opportunity to be a shining beacon of light to the world.

The one conversation that just keeps coming back to me again and again was well over an hour in length. There were tears, confusion and frustration about dealing not only with the regime that their family members were being held by, of course, but also with the Canadian government. I think we need to be able to cut red tape. We need to do everything we can within reason to help these people.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I couldn't agree more. We're going to have civil society members come and talk to us about that. I think we'll talk about some of those cases in detail.

One last thing is that I do find it surprising that you see a role for the CRTC in some situations and not in others. It feels to me a little odd that the CRTC overreaches when that's the Conservative narrative and doesn't overreach when it is not. I'm just wondering if you could talk a bit about that.

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

Generally, as a good Conservative, Heather, I believe in freedom of choice and that, when you sign in to YouTube, you should be able to watch what you want to watch unfettered by an overlooking government.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

You will be fettered. You'll just be fettered by YouTube.

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

Fair enough, but this is a very narrow exception. I think it's also a bit of a realization of the fact that foreign state actors are attempting to influence Canadian society, and we have to be on alert to that.

I don't think, given the current context, I need to say anything more on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

We will next go to Mr. Genuis for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Lawrence, I was going to be somewhat complimentary of your efforts on this, but I don't think I can top the kind words from Ms. McPherson. I am now a bit more suspicious of your motives since you're being called a closet New Democrat.

In all seriousness, though, thank you for your work on this.

I want to start with a comment to respond to the very sincere and good questions from Mr. Sarai. It seems to me that, as this legislation is constructed, the government has the flexibility to define what it considers to be a prisoner of conscience. It may get questions in the context of a report about how it operationalizes that, but it does provide a significant level of flexibility, which, from the government's perspective, is probably appreciated.

On this issue of genocide recognition and whether that would apply to a state that committed a genocide at some point in the past, that question is, I think, answered quite clearly by the legislation that you've drafted. It says:

No licence shall be issued, amended or renewed under this Part in relation to a broadcasting undertaking, including one that distributes foreign programming, that is vulnerable to being influenced by a foreign national or entity

(a) that has committed

It says certain crimes. In other words, it's not about the fact that it comes from a country where genocide has been committed. It's a question of whether it is subject to the influence of an individual. Clearly this wouldn't apply to Germany, for example. Clearly this wouldn't apply to Turkey. It wouldn't apply to Rwanda. In cases where there has been a change of the individuals in charge, there's no sense in which this provision would apply.

Even if there's a certain level of political continuity, but there has been a change in the individuals involved, it likely wouldn't apply. It would seem to me that it only applies in the case where individuals have been included in the context of a genocide recognition. If those individuals also control a broadcasting entity, that would trigger this section.

I hope that answers the concern of whether this applies to Germany, Turkey or Rwanda—cases where the current government has nothing to do with the governments that were involved in genocides past—but I'd love to hear your reflections on those clarifications.