Foreign Affairs Committee on March 23rd, 2023

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

I apologize. My answer wasn't clear on that, but, yes, it's meant for a very narrow section of individuals who are attempting to influence our broadcasting networks and are actively involved in genocide. Obviously, Germany would be excluded and other such examples would be excluded.

You're right, Mr. Genuis, as always.

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

What a love-in this is. This isn't how it normally is, unfortunately, but maybe we're headed there with your positive influence.

On the issue of the parliamentary trigger that was also raised, it seems to me that one of the important things about this legislation is that government responses can take a long time, 120 days maximum, and that may not be adequate in responding to emergent situations. It does give committees flexibility around creating a timeline for a response, but it also requires a response even in the event of prorogation or dissolution. There is no mechanism by which governments can avoid providing this response. If a committee says this is an urgent international issue and that a response is required, that is important as a way of saying that we need a response from the government. It also prescribes that the response has to be a response.

Sometimes we get, in committee responses, official government responses provided through the standing order process, something like, “The government takes note of the committee's recommendation.” What I wouldn't want to see is, if the committee says, “We think this person needs to be sanctioned and the government needs to consider sanctioning the person”, the government waits 119 days and then says, “We take note of that recommendation,” or it gets lost in prorogation or dissolution. This is why, from my perspective, the parliamentary triggers that we've seen in other countries for Magnitsky sanctions and in this legislation are important.

Could you maybe comment further on it? Some people are going to say that there's already a mechanism for asking for a government response, so why did you add this additional mechanism as it relates to sanctioning entities and individuals?

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

As you said, Garnett, this is a substantive provision. I'm sure this never happened to the Liberals from the Conservative government, but I have been the recipient of some less than substantive answers from the Liberal government. I'm sure that maybe all members of the opposition would see that. This is an attempt to make it a little more substantive.

With respect to the 40 days, at the risk of becoming a finance committee member here testifying before foreign affairs, when I look across the world, we are, as a government, increasingly behind the eight ball when it comes to efficiency on everything from tax filing to managing our civil service. We have great civil servants, but we're not giving them the tools they need to be successful. Our standards, whether it be passports that take nine months to get in place, or whether it takes months and months, are....

In terms of asking the government to report back within 40 days, in the private sector, on an issue as serious as Magnitsky sanctions, that would be back in 48 hours flat. I'm sure of it. To me, asking the government to respond within 40 days, which is a month and 10 days, with a reasonable answer as to why or why not they're imposing Magnitsky sanctions—you don't have to do it, but just tell us why—is incredibly reasonable. I would call upon and hope that the federal government would improve its efficiency on all sides, and of course, right at the top of the list, with respect to human rights.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you.

Next we will go to Mr. Oliphant for five minutes.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank Mr. Lawrence for the bill and for his passion and compassion in doing it. I probably have more problems with the bill than others, so I am going to dig in on a couple of things.

This is a piece of legislation. It's not a report and it's not a statement or a speech. In legislation, precision is important. I want to go back into the area of how you define “prisoner of conscience”, the legal standing of that term and how it would be interpreted by someone needing to actually decide who is one and who is not.

I come at that as a former prison chaplain, where everyone was innocent. Everyone has their own definition of that, if you're in prison, and every country has its own legal standings. Canada has its understanding. That's not a legal definition in Canada, so how do you define it?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Oliphant. I really have tremendous respect for some of the work you've done in foreign affairs and otherwise. I guess I would start by saying that, if you want to put some more meat on the bones, as it were, with respect to the definition, I would love to sit down and talk to you. It was purposely left wide, I grant you that, to give the government some flexibility with respect to defining it.

I don't know if you'll ever get to a perfectly prescriptive definition of where you could list this person, this crime, that crime and this crime. Ultimately, as you would know, Mr. Oliphant, because you have a tremendous track record of working around the world with various organizations, every situation might be a little bit different. Every regime is different. You couldn't just categorize a certain crime as “prisoner of conscience” and this one not. I don't know whether you'd ever get it to be that prescriptive.

I'm happy to sit down and discuss it. If you want to help define it more, I am more than happy to have that discussion with you.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

As well, Ms. McPherson's questioning was somewhat different from Mr. Sarai's. She was talking a lot about Canadians who are detained elsewhere. These are consular cases. Is this primarily about Canadians who are detained somewhere and these are consular cases, or are these about human rights defenders within another country who don't have dual citizenship but have citizenship in that country?

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

That is a great question. My focus in drafting the legislation was primarily on Canadians, but I'm willing to discuss that.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

We may need to get into that a little bit. For the consular cases that I've dealt with—and I've dealt with literally hundreds of them—every one is unique and different. I guess I would take exception to saying that we bargain or attempt to have national priorities or trade interests above.... My understanding, from the way I've worked with consular officials, is that every case is treated as what is best for that Canadian in detention, always.

One of the problems I have with this list is that Canada has a very good reputation in many countries. We have irritated relations with some countries, and if we put a person on a list in Canada from a country that we have an irritation with, that person could then have more hardship. I have seen that.

I'm not going to name a country, but there is a country that we have a very difficult relationship with—it's not China; we have a different relationship with them—but we are very cautious about Canadians in detention there for fear they will have bigger punishment, more hardship and less access if we publicize the case.

I've often had to work with families and say that megaphone diplomacy works sometimes to draw attention to a case, but sometimes you're going to get your family member killed or another Canadian killed if you do that. I'm just wondering about the nuance in this bill around that.

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

I am aware of that, and I think reasonable people can differ on it. I'm open to some amendment on that. Once again, I'm happy to work with you on that, Mr. Oliphant.

My concern is that with some governments—let's just throw Liberal and Conservative out of it—it has occurred in the past that other priorities get put ahead of the families. For any type of amendment on this, I would want to make sure that it's driven by the individual's rights and by the family's wishes, as opposed to other priorities.

I do respect your service, though, and also your comments. They're very reasonable.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

All right. That's my time.

I'd like to get into issues around the sanctions and reporting, because I don't know how committees have the resources to do.... Our sanctions regime is robust, and when we put sanctions on someone, we have judicial requirements, whether they're justice requirements or legal requirements. I don't know how a committee does that and gives due process to the names we're throwing around.

I know my time is up.

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

I'm on the fifth floor of the Wellington Building. You can come up and see me any time, Mr. Oliphant, and we'll talk it through.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you.

We next go to Mr. Bergeron.

You have two and a half minutes.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As to whether Canada's sanctions regime is robust, we will certainly have the opportunity to discuss that more in depth soon because we are about to start a review of Canada's sanctions regime. We will certainly take a closer look at that issue during the study.

I would like to follow up on the issue just raised by Mr. Oliphant. The idea that Global Affairs Canada should be forced to reveal its involvement in the freeing of political prisoners is a good one. That should be established from the outset. However, should that include prisoners of conscience, since there could be repercussions for the prisoners themselves as well as for their loved ones in the country in question?

What parameters would you like to see to ensure that publishing the names of people will not jeopardize their safety and that of their family?

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

Thank you very much for the question.

That's a good question.

As I noted before, I guess I would start with what the families have told me over and over again. We had a town hall with over 200 people who attended with respect to the legislation. Over and over, I heard, “We want the names published.” I didn't hear from one family who said, “Let's not do this because I'm afraid for my family's life.” These people in many cases are already in the worst of positions.

With respect to any types of parameters on the amendment, for me, my bright line is putting the victims first and putting the families of the victims first.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

The problem is that we are trying to apply a measure—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

I'm afraid you're out of time, Mr. Bergeron.

We next go to Ms. McPherson.

You have two and a half minutes.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Two and a half minutes go very quickly.

I'm going to ask you a little bit about cluster munitions, if I could, Mr. Lawrence.

Of course, my team and I have consulted with experts on disarmament. We intend to bring forward an amendment to this bill on section 11 of the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act. As you know, that contains a long list of exemptions about combined military operations, exemptions that are not in place for 21 other NATO countries, so I think the NATO excuse doesn't hold. It allows for Canadian Forces personnel, when they are in combined operations, to transport cluster munitions and to direct or authorize the use of cluster munitions.

Would you be open to an amendment that would limit the ability of section 11, that would take section 11 out?

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

Thanks, Ms. McPherson, for that.

That would be something, candidly—I'll be open—that I'd have to consult on with our shadow minister for defence and a number of our colleagues just to see what the impact of that would be on our armed forces. I very much know that your intent is very good. Like I said, I'd have to go back and discuss it with our caucus.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Maybe certainly do that, because, for us, it puts our personnel, our military, in a dangerous or a difficult situation when they have to do something they probably don't believe in. I think all Canadians are proud of the work we've done on land mines. I think they're proud of the disarmament efforts we take. Knowing that 21 other NATO countries have taken this step, I think it's an excellent amendment.

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

Yes. Like I said, I will take that back to our caucus, and we can have further discussions.

I would share, of course, that I'm extremely proud that it was a Conservative government that initially brought in the demining and cluster munitions legislation. I'm very thankful and very proud of the fact it was Prime Minister Stephen Harper who started this ball, and we'll continue moving it. Like I said, I will discuss your amendment with our caucus. I know it has the best of intent behind it.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you.

Those are all my questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Ms. McPherson.

Allow me to thank Mr. Lawrence.

Thank you for your passion and your compassion.

Yes, Mr. Genuis, go ahead.

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

Chair, Mr. Lawrence is supposed to be here for an hour. Can we just use the remaining time?