Foreign Affairs Committee on March 23rd, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

No, we cannot.

Mr. Lawrence—

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

Is it the will of the committee to use the remaining time or...?

[An hon member]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Mr. Lawrence, thank you very much for your passion and your compassion. I have to confess that I have never seen so many compliments flying back and forth between members and parties. Thank you for having made all that possible.

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

Thank you very much.

It is a privilege to be here. I'm tempted to filibuster to support my colleague, but I won't do that in the name of harmony and peace.

I certainly do appreciate it and look forward to passing great legislation. Thank you all for your constructive comments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you.

Now we'll suspend for a few minutes.

Everyone who's online and virtual can just remain, and we'll move to the next panel.

Thank you.

[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.

[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]

We now turn to the members.

The first member up is MP Genuis.

You have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses.

I'm going to start by asking about the Broadcasting Act issue, and the appropriate person is welcome to answer.

I was a bit disappointed by the characterization of a House of Commons' motion recognizing a genocide as a political statement. This is how genocides have been recognized in this country. In every case, it has been through a motion of the House of Commons. I would like to think that it has a significant impact on the way the government approaches it. It is not merely a political statement.

I would very much appreciate it if there were established tribunals here in Canada that would evaluate the question of genocide determination. The problem is that, and we see this in other countries, the claim is that it should be made by a legal tribunal, but there is no existing mechanism in domestic law. If I think a genocide is being committed somewhere, and I want the Government of Canada to make a determination that such and such a thing is a genocide, I cannot bring that to any court. The process has been the House of Commons making those acts of recognition.

Is there anything that I have said so far that isn't accurate from your perspective?

[Heidi Hulan]

I'd like to assure you that parliamentary determinations that genocide has taken place are taken extremely seriously in the conduct of our foreign policy abroad and are reflected in what we say publicly and to foreign governments around the world. It is in no way to suggest that those decisions are not influential or have material impact on our diplomacy. When it comes to further actions of a legal character, a legal determination is deemed to be a valuable thing.

For the—

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

Who does that right now?

My understanding is that there is nobody within Canada who is available to provide that legal determination. There are civil society experts, yes, but for organs of government, no.

[Heidi Hulan]

Inside government departments, legal advice is provided with respect to whether certain acts have met the definition of genocide as set out in the genocide convention, although I can't claim to be an expert in this domain. If there's a further answer to your question about whether there are additional legal bodies that can make a determination, we will certainly be happy to feed that to the committee.

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

Yes. I would welcome a follow-up response to that in writing. My understanding is that, in any case where Canada has recognized a genocide, the mechanism has been through Parliament. That's the appropriate mechanism to tie it to if we believe that entities involved in committing genocide shouldn't be able to transmit their genocidal propaganda into this country.

Now, it seems to me that there's an inconsistency in the way in which the government has approached the issue of disinformation from violent hostile regimes. When the government is asked in certain cases about this kind of disinformation, they have said the CRTC is independent and it should make these decisions. However, in the case of RT, the government issued a directive to the CRTC that led to the revocation of RT's licence.

The irony of this is that we know that, for instance, certain Chinese state-affiliated media are pushing disinformation specifically about Russia's invasion of Ukraine and that is showing up in Canadian broadcasting, as well as things like forced confessions obtained through torture. It seems troubling and maybe a bit convenient that, in the case of one media outlet controlled by a foreign genocidal actor, a directive has been issued, but in the case of another one that's sharing some of that same misinformation, the government says that the CRTC is independent.

Isn't it valuable for Parliament to say that there should be a consistent approach, that it shouldn't depend on whatever other factors inform this differential treatment and that there should be a consistent approach around disinformation by foreign states involved in genocide?

[Heidi Hulan]

Thank you.

I'd like to turn to Amy Awad from Canadian Heritage to answer that.

[Amy Awad, Senior Director, Marketplace and Legislative Policy, Department of Canadian Heritage]

Thank you for the question. Maybe I'll touch on all three points you made, with your permission.

First, turning to the question on the statement of genocide, the proposal that the government will be putting forward is one where we look at legal recognition by both domestic and international tribunals. Of course, there are international tribunals that have made determinations of genocide. Within Canadian courts, usually not directly, the courts have—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Ms. Awad, I'm terribly sorry. The translators are having a hard time picking up your voice. I would just ask you to bend in the mike so that they have an easier time hearing you.

Thank you.

[Amy Awad]

I'm sorry.

Within Canadian court proceedings—for example, in the immigration context and other contexts—there is a possibility to see recognitions of genocide. There might be other domestic legal findings to point to beyond just the statement of Parliament.

The main concern around the determination by the House of Commons is not that it's not valid. It's very valid, and it's a strong statement. I think my colleague talked about the importance of the government. It's more about the process that's followed to make that statement. Frequently, those statements would then lead to, for example, sanctions or other things that follow, and have additional checks and balances, rights to responses and things that might not be present in the parliamentary process when dealing with a foreign entity.

In terms of your—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

I'm afraid you're out of time, Ms. Awad. Thank you.

We now go to Mr. Zuberi.

Mr. Zuberi, you have six minutes.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here today and for helping us put some precision to this good-faith piece of legislation. Having a math degree and a law degree, I see a lot of fuzziness in this, although it is well intentioned.

I appreciate what you said in terms of genocide and how we need to have some form of a concrete definition or a concrete standard. In the House of Commons, we sometimes have motions. For example, on the genocide relating to the Uighurs, we voted in name. Sometimes we have a unanimous consent motion that's put out to the Commons where nobody objects and it passes. At other times, we have committees that look at the issue.

You mentioned that the 40-day reporting would be challenging when it comes to Magnitsky sanctions. Can you walk us through what's required in order for us to actually have a sanction installed in the books, and whether or not that is actually possible within 40 days?

[Heidi Hulan]

Thank you very much.

The sanctions process is a detailed one and has a high threshold in terms of the expectation of substantiation. I would like to turn to Marie-Josée Langlois to walk you through the details.

Thank you.

[Marie-Josée Langlois, Director General, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development]

In terms of our sanctions tools in Canada, the legislation defines clearly under what types of circumstances what types of actions can be taken by Canada. Once we receive information, or once we have information that is provided to us by others, we take a very close look and do a rigorous assessment of what the best approach to address the issue is and which sanctions tool or other diplomatic tool is best appropriate in the circumstances at hand. This involves policy considerations, legal considerations and often collaboration or coordination with other partners, whether in the Government of Canada or outside the Government of Canada—like-minded partners that also have similar objectives or interests.

Once there's a decision by the government to go forward in terms of designating people or entities, it's a regulatory process in Canada. We have to develop the regulatory package. This is presented to the Governor in Council for approval and then, once that is approved, it is made public on the Government of Canada website.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you.

How long would that process take, the minimal time?

[Marie-Josée Langlois]

Regulatory processes in Canada are generally a longer process. For a typical non-sanctions issue, they often take many months. In the case of sanctions, it varies. There is a recognition by the government of the urgency of taking action in many instances, so there's no set time. It's varied and is very much aligned to try to meet the circumstances at hand.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

I'm assuming, though, that if you had a committee that came forth and said that individual X should be sanctioned, it would take longer than 40 days for that analysis to happen and for it to take effect. Is that correct?