Foreign Affairs Committee on March 23rd, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 55 of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room as well as remotely by using the Zoom application.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of the members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike. Please mute yourself when you are not speaking.

Interpretation for those on Zoom is at the bottom of your screen. You have the choice of either floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, November 16, 2022, the committee commences 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 honour to welcome the sponsor of this bill, MP Philip Lawrence, the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South.

I suspect you're familiar with how we do these things. You will be provided five minutes, after which we will open it to questions from the members.

Thank you.

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

Thank you very much. I am on the equally productive and busy finance committee, but it's somewhat different, so my apologies if I talk too much about numbers.

It's an incredible honour to be in front of the foreign affairs committee today to discuss my bill. As previously mentioned, it is 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—often known as the Sergei Magnitsky act—the Broadcasting Act and the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act.

This bill is an omnibus human rights bill that's designed to build consensus in areas of obvious need of reform. We'll go through four different areas in which these reforms were made.

To begin with, I think it's right to point out, especially during some difficult times for our democracy recently, that Canada can be, and has been, a beacon for what is right in the world when it comes to human rights and other issues. We have the benefit of a culture that values life, that values human rights and that values respect for one another. For my part, I am extremely proud to call myself a Canadian and to be a representative of the Canadian government.

That is exactly why I have put this legislation in front of the committee and in front of Parliament. I believe this legislation would assist us not only in building Canada's reputation but also in subsequent efforts to improve the world, even if it's just in small ways.

We'll go through it line by line, but I must briefly comment that this has been a tremendous experience for me personally. In the process of creating this law, I've had the opportunity to work with great MPs from around the table, from all parties.

I have had the tremendous privilege to talk to stakeholders from the human rights community who are doing such valuable work to protect the most vulnerable in the world and to hold to account the people who commit the most vile atrocities around the world.

A big thank you goes to everyone who has helped to bring us to this stage, and I look forward to, as it has been throughout in the House of Commons and otherwise, a productive, substantive discussion about Canada's role in the world, specifically with respect to these four provisions.

The first amendment imposes a reporting requirement on the Department of Foreign Affairs in relation to international human rights. Specifically of key importance is publishing the names of prisoners of conscience whom the government is working to release and making Canadians and the public aware of them.

This was a subject of some debate and some questions in the House. I've had the privilege, once again, of talking to family members of individuals who are being held around the world simply because of their religious views, who they are, their status or their political views. I've heard a full-throated cheer for this section. They believe, as I do, that transparency is the best disinfectant.

When there are people who are committing atrocities, they need to be held accountable. We can become aware of some of the difficult times that people are having and the difficult positions that people are in around the world—people just like us, who are fighting for freedom, fighting for LGBTQ rights and fighting for democracy. They need to be supported and they simply cannot be left in the darkness as a remnant of international discussions or of trade discussions. They must take the spotlight, as these are, in many cases, great people fighting for freedom around the world.

The second one is with respect to the Magnitsky act. The Magnitsky act is a powerful piece of legislation that, if I can be so bold, has not, in recent years, been used to its maximum advantage. The Magnitsky act is, of course, named after Sergei Magnitsky, who was one of the first people to attempt to hold Vladimir Putin to account.

The Magnitsky act attempts to impose sanctions on those who are the most heinous violators of human rights. Unfortunately, in recent years, for whatever reasons, these sanctions have not been used to their full advantage. That calls for the government to report back to Parliament on the reason it is not imposing certain sanctions.

The third section is with respect to the Broadcasting Act. It seeks to restrict the ability of genocidal states to use Canadian airwaves to broadcast their propaganda.

The fourth and final amendment aims to strengthen the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act. It seeks to defund companies that are in the process of manufacturing and producing cluster munitions. Cluster munitions, of course, are really not even effective war tools. They're in fact just tools of terror that inflict many needless casualties and injuries to the civilian population, in many cases children.

I thank you for your time, I thank you for your consideration and I thank you already for the productive discussion we will have. I believe the bill is great in its own current form; that being said, I'm open to any amendment or discussion that will make the bill better.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lawrence.

We will now open the floor to questions from the members. The first question goes to Mr. Epp.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to my colleague for his well-thought-out bill.

You opened by describing and dealing with, in your first section, prisoners of conscience. Can you expand a bit on exactly the breadth of what you mean? I heard you mention LGBTQ rights and human rights. I also heard you reference those who are fighting for democracy. I'm hearing a bit wider definition rather than a very narrow and prescriptive one.

Am I hearing you correctly?

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

You're correct. We had a discussion about this in the House when I was giving my speeches. I'm just really reiterating the comments that I've heard from stakeholders and families of prisoners of conscience. What they don't want to have happen is for it to be overly prescriptive in nature. They prefer a broader term.

I'm well aware, and it's been quite pointed out, that the term “prisoners of conscience” is not a term of art, as it were, and I'm not married to those exact words, so if there are amendments, I'm open to them, but I would not want to see any weakening of this wording, by which I mean a narrowing of the definition. I would rather see too many names published as opposed to too few.

I've heard from families over and over again that they are not concerned that the name may put their loved ones in jeopardy. In fact, it's just the opposite: They're tired of their loved ones being an afterthought in geopolitical politics. These are real human beings and this is where we can make a real difference. It would be a shame to leave people out as a result of a definitional issue when we could otherwise help them.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you. You touched on exactly where I want to go in my next question.

This bill proposes the publishing of names. Can you talk a bit more about the risk or the potential risk around that? Also, what if there are concerns by the individuals involved with that risk specifically?

As I stated, I've had numerous conversations with families of individuals who are being held in various countries, from Venezuela to many other authoritarian countries, and they've said over and over again that they want the names published. If there were to be any change to this part, I would not want to see the rights of these family members restricted in any way. I believe that it should be directed by the victims themselves, but over and over again I heard from the families that they weren't concerned about the names being published. It was just the opposite.

So many of them, unfortunately, felt marginalized by the unwillingness of countries around the world to publicize these names. Whether it is the authoritarian leaders themselves or the people under them, their greatest fear is to be exposed for what they are. Whether it is through the Magnitsky act or by publishing these lists, I don't think we can be afraid to say it like it is, and that's what I heard over and over from family members. They're tired of being shoved into the darkness. They want to see in the light.

I know how great Canadians are and what amazing people we have. If they see what these people are being exposed to and they're made aware of it, I am confident that we will have a stronger push than ever for protecting human rights around the world.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you, but I'm also hearing you say you would not.... If someone's family were to be so targeted, are you open to a process whereby they could be protected, if that was their desire?

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

I am. I think that would be a reasonable discussion that perhaps we could have with respect to an amendment to the bill.

As I said, it's key to me, after having many emotional discussions—one in particular was hours in length and many tears were shed—that it be victim-driven, because it's way too easy for a government bureaucrat to prioritize other things over human rights. If in fact there's not a light on that, if it's not victim-driven, then I'm worried that other priorities could overshadow human rights, which in my view is not the right course.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you.

I'll move on a bit to the section that deals with the changes to the Broadcasting Act.

In the House and the Senate, we have spent a lot of time—and we will be spending more time—on Bill C-11, which talks about the risks of censoring free speech, yet here is the contemplation of attaching some censorship. Can you talk about the distinctions between the concerns many of us have about Bill C-11 and the risks you're addressing with your bill?

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

I share some of the concerns on Bill C-11. My thoughts on that are on the record in the House.

This, I would say, is very different. It's a very narrow, very small limitation. What it's really attempting to do is limit the ability of genocidal states to use Canadian airways to broadcast their propaganda. It received near-unanimous support, I think, with respect to Russia today, when the airways were being utilized to broadcast Russian propaganda.

I think that in this narrow stance, we have to make sure that foreign states aren't utilizing Canadian airways to broadcast their propaganda and in some ways threatening newcomers from around the world in Canada. This is just an incredibly narrow exception that is important in order to make sure that foreign state actors, which is what they would be, are not controlling Canadian airways.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Epp.

We next go to Mr. Sarai for six minutes.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to thank Mr. Lawrence for introducing his private member's bill. It's a lot of hard work.

You're attempting to amend four separate sets of legislation, so it's no easy task. Maybe you could tell me what your initial intention was. Then I have a few questions.

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

The intention was.... This might sound a little bit naive, I guess, and maybe a little like Pollyanna. I really did come to Ottawa to make Canada and the world a little bit better. I think that there are 337 people who probably did the same. As much as it gets rancorous and difficult and there are challenging times and partisanship, I really do believe that parliamentarians by and large come to Ottawa to make the world a little bit better.

These are omnibus bills. The thing that connects them all is that they enhance the ability of Canada and Canadians, through the government, to have a positive impact on the world, whether it is calling attention to prisoners of conscience, whether it is holding accountable individuals who have committed some of the most vicious atrocities that you can imagine, whether it's stopping the broadcasting of genocidal states or whether it's stopping the funding of cluster munitions.

I had an individual talk to me about cluster munitions. Sometimes cluster munitions are really just small bombs. When they go off indiscriminately, they kill civilians. They don't always explode.

I've talked to some of the NGOs involved in cluster munitions. They look like little shiny things. I have young kids. Anyone else who has kids knows that they like little shiny things. More than one child has died as a result of unexploded cluster munitions when the child thought it was a toy or something to play with.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

The intent is very strong, and you're very passionate about it.

My worry is about how you define a prisoner of conscience. States won't charge them and say, “You're a prisoner of conscience, so we're going to arrest you for this.” They usually make up or fabricate charges. If it's homosexuality, they'll charge under sodomy. If they're against the state or don't like the government, they'll call it sedition or treason or terrorism if they want.

How will we, sitting in Canada, determine if that person is a prisoner of conscience? If you're going completely upon the accused, then every accused in the world that is charged with any crime will want to be considered a prisoner of conscience. Nobody is going to say that they are involved in sedition, treason or terrorism. Who determines that?

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

This is something that the lawyers have dealt with for centuries.

At the edge of any type of definition, there's always going to be discussion and debate.

When I talk to—

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

No, I'm talking about the bill. How will Canada define those people as prisoners of conscience? Who decides that fact?

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

That will ultimately be in accordance with the government.

As for prisoners of conscience, when I talk to stakeholders, not one person was confused by that.

I understand why we want to split hairs here, but the reality is that this is really quite pedantic. I believe that most government officials, diplomats and stakeholders in those discussions know what a prisoner of conscience is, although there are going to be some on the edge as to whether that person is a prisoner of conscience or not. I'm even open to putting a definition in there, if that is the difference between having your party's support and not.

What I would not want to see is it being overly prescriptive, because I would rather see someone's name published than make it overly prescriptive. All we're doing is publishing. We're not freeing anyone who is maybe on the broader side of “prisoner of conscience”, and quite frankly, I don't think it's a valid argument. That's an argument about any definition; we could squabble at the edges of any definition.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

The other part, you said, was about countries that have committed genocide or committed atrocities. Is that the UN definition of genocide, our definition of a genocide, or a UN Security Council definition of a genocide, which never happens? How do you determine that?

Many countries have had genocides in their country at certain periods of time. Does that mean that we don't broadcast anything from that country ever again because they've been accused or they've admitted to genocide in the past?

I'm concerned. I'm in favour of doing it to some degree, but I need to know what kind of parameters it has if I'm voting on it.

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

For sure. It would be the Canadian Parliament that would call it genocide, just as we called the Uighur genocide a genocide. That's clear.

In addition to that, it doesn't in itself cut off the broadcasting. What it's doing is giving the CRTC power. The CRTC uses this power with respect to Russia today. They just didn't have an appropriate process to do it, so it made it extremely difficult. This would give them a much clearer path in the extreme cases.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Lastly, really quickly, how do you describe the process on the government's response? Do you expect 120 days, as the committee usually requests, for a response on this? Is responding to certain reports outlined in the legislation feasible in 40 days? What's the result you're looking for?

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

I think what you're talking about is the 40-day reporting period with respect to the Magnitsky act. We're calling for the government to, within 40 days, report back.... If we put forward, either in Parliament or in committee, a motion calling upon someone to be sanctioned with respect to the Magnitsky act, all we're asking for is a response as to why or why not. I think 40 days is more than reasonable, and I believe that it's extremely possible.

When you think about people who are being tortured or who are in pain—Magnitsky violations are people creating some of the worst heinous crimes—it's not too much to ask a bureaucrat to get it done in 40 days.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Mr. Bergeron, you have six minutes.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Colleagues, thank you for this bill and for being with us today.

It's hard to be against motherhood and apple pie. From the outset, I believe that, on principle, there is little we can hold against this bill. The trickier part lies in its application, as you saw from the questions which have been asked until now, and in the fact that this bill tries to cover too much ground. As the saying goes, “you should not bite off more than you can chew”.

Therefore, beyond the bill's lofty principles and values, the issue is: What can realistically be achieved with the provisions contained in the bill?

For example, regarding the Sergei Magnitsky Law, you all know it's become a habit: you adopt a directive to prohibit the import of goods from Xinjiang involving forced labour, but you can't enforce the directive. You decide to apply sanctions, but you can't really follow up and make sure the sanctions are actually being enforced. You adopt a bill to seize assets and give them to Ukraine to rebuild the country, but you can't enforce the provisions. In short, we are adopting a bill which provides for sanctions, the Sergei Magnitsky Law, but it will never be enforced.

In your view, why do you think your bill has a better chance of enforcing the Sergei Magnitsky Law? What will prevent the thing officials were describing, namely that as we make our intentions clear, people will quickly move their assets to avoid sanctions?