Foreign Affairs Committee on March 28th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

If you could answer in less than 20 seconds, Mr. Ambassador.

[Robert Rae]

I really don't think its fair to expect me to answer that question the way you posed it. I said what I said, when I said it. I have not changed my mind.

It's up to the committee, and it's up to the people who are working in the committee, to decide how they're going to vote and what they're going to do. What the position of the current government is, frankly, has not been discussed, and I have not been asked for my opinion, one way or the other.

I'll let you solve it.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

It is good that your opinion has not changed.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

We now go to MP Kramp-Neuman.

You have two minutes.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Good morning, Ambassador Rae.

Back in February 23, 2022, you acknowledged that it's never too late to stop, and it's never too late to make a turn for diplomacy.

I think we can recognize, together, that with Russia only showing more signs of sustaining its military campaign in Ukraine, the hope of any diplomatic pathways is weakening. Could you possibly speak to our support in Ukraine? We need to support Ukraine unequivocally. We need a very decisive win.

I'll allow you to elaborate a little on that. Because of the nature of time, could you also acknowledge a little further your comments with regard to the position of Canada on the invasion of Ukraine and how it constitutes genocide?

[Robert Rae]

On the genocide question, one has to look hard at President Putin's speeches to determine what the intent of Russia was in launching the war.

I have no doubt in my mind, based on what I've read, seen and heard him say publicly—I've been a Putin-watcher for quite a while—that he recognizes the independence, the sovereignty and the separateness of Ukraine, Ukrainian culture and Ukrainian people. That's why I think that the “genocide” word is not inappropriate.

On the question of what Canada has been doing, I think Canada's record, frankly, has been exemplary on sanctions, on military supplies and on our full-out support for what Ukraine needs when it needs it. I think we've responded to every request. The response to the support has been political, military, diplomatic, humanitarian, and it's covered the full force of what needs to be done.

Could we do more? Of course, everyone can do more. We will do more. The Prime Minister has made it very clear in all of his statements how we're ready to respond and to respond in an effective way.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you so much.

Could you confirm—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

I'm sorry. You're out of time. You're over two minutes.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

For the last question, we go to MP Zuberi.

You have two minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ambassador Rae, for being here. It was good seeing you during President Biden's address in Ottawa last week.

I want to ask a question around Haiti. The subcommittee of the foreign affairs committee has been studying Haiti.

Can you elaborate a bit about the situation as it is currently? How do you see things going in the future for states that are involved within the region?

[Robert Rae]

The situation in Haiti is very serious. Gangs have taken over much of the country and most of Port-au-Prince. The condition facing women and children in the country is serious. The lack of food is serious. It's truly a deeply troubling situation.

We are responding with a basic principle in mind: It's really a primary responsibility of the government—and frankly the people of Haiti and the political leadership of Haiti—to take the assistance that's being offered and to do everything they can to restore public order and then to restore a democratic path for the country towards an election.

There are people who say the Haitians can't do it on their own. The government has indicated that it wants to try to make that happen. It wants to create the conditions in which that can happen. The support that we're offering is frankly unprecedented, and we're going to do more. We're working hard to make sure not only that civil order can be restored but also that civil rights can be maintained. We don't think that order and rights are contradictory. We think you need to have both. You not only need to have public safety, but you also need to make sure that you have democratic rights that are respected.

Right now, the gang violence is terrible, and the disrespect by the gangs for the people of Haiti is appalling. We have to do everything we can to disrupt the gangs but do it in a way that puts the forces of Haiti in the forefront.

The reason we're doing that is that there are serious consequences to other forms of interventions that we need to appreciate. Not all previous interventions have been successful and sustainable. It's that principle of sustainability that we have to continue to keep our focus on. That's really what we're trying to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you very much, Ambassador.

On that note, that brings our questions to an end. As always, it was a great pleasure and a great honour to have you here with our committee. Thank you for all of the tremendous work you're doing down in New York and for leading the charge, as you always do.

Thank you very much.

[Robert Rae]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If I may say, just on a personal note, that I was delighted, Mr. Chairman, that you were able to join us in New York during the time of the debate on Iran. I want to stress to other members that you are all welcome to come, if you can, to sessions of the General Assembly, to sessions of the UN. We will always welcome you here and will find ways of providing you with the assistance that you would like to have.

As I've said before, I'm quite happy to come back to the committee. It's sometimes difficult to schedule, not just for me but apparently for you as well, but I'm more than happy to do that. I really appreciate the chance to be with you today.

Thank you very much for the opportunity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you very much.

We will now suspend for a couple of minutes before we move on to the second panel. It will be no more than two minutes.

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 (Sergei Magnitsky Law), the Broadcasting Act and the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act.

Now it's my great pleasure to welcome our two esteemed panellists.

First, we have Mr. Alex Neve, who, as you all know, is the senior fellow at the graduate school of public and international affairs at the University of Ottawa. We also have with us, from the foundation of Safeguard Defenders, Ms. Laura Harth, who is the campaign director. She was here last week as well, appearing as a witness before another committee.

We're very grateful to have you both.

First, we will start off with opening remarks by each of you, which will be followed by questions from the members. You will each have five minutes. Once you're very close to the end of your time slot, I will hold this up and I would be grateful if you wrapped up your replies or comments as soon as possible.

Given that you are here in person, Mr. Neve, the floor is yours. You have five minutes.

[Alex Neve, Senior Fellow, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thought you were going to suggest you would be taking a selfie of us or something.

It's a pleasure to be here with you as you look at this important legislation.

Since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights almost 75 years ago, states have developed an extensive range of standards, bodies and processes for protecting human rights internationally.

There are 18 core UN human rights treaties and option protocols. Ten expert committees oversee state compliance with those treaties. The UN Human Rights Council meets three times per year as well as has frequent special sessions. The council's universal periodic review process reviews the human rights record of every UN member state once every four and a half years. The council's special procedures system of 45 thematic- and 14 country-focused independent experts rigorously scrutinizes human rights challenges around the world. Independent commissions of inquiry established by the council conduct in-depth investigations of situations of widespread human rights violations around the world.

There is all of that, yet our world continues to face massive human rights challenges. Governments on every continent show contempt for the binding obligations they have assumed. Accountability and enforcement are weak, relying primarily on notions of good faith and self-interest.

Canada has played a key role in advancing much of that progress and is widely respected as an international human rights champion, but there is so much more we can and must do.

One side of that—not the focus of today's session—is that we absolutely must set a stronger example of effectively implementing our own international human rights obligations domestically. The other dimension is that, while Canadian governments speak about the importance of human rights in our foreign policy, we do not back that up with transparent and accountable commitments, plans and reporting to demonstrate concretely that human rights come first for Canada on the world stage.

Bill C-281 takes a step in that direction on two fronts: an annual report outlining measures the government takes to advance international human rights and a list of prisoners of conscience for whose release Canada is advocating. I believe these two proposals can and should go further.

With respect to the first, an annual report that is not grounded in a strong foundational framework will, I fear, come up short. That is why advocates have called on Canada for many years to adopt a whole-of-government international human rights action plan developed on the basis of consultations with civil society and indigenous peoples' organizations, updated on a regular basis and subject to annual progress reports, which are reviewed by Parliament and released publicly.

I would suggest an amendment to Bill C-281 to require the development of just such an action plan and reporting processes of that nature.

With respect to the second provision, there are a number of considerations to keep in mind. Let me highlight just two.

First, “prisoners of conscience”—a powerful term that comes out of decades of campaigning by Amnesty International—is, nevertheless, not defined in law. There are many unjustly detained prisoners whose situations may well fall outside of that term, such as individuals facing torture, disappearances or the death penalty. I would suggest instead that the focus be on individuals who are detained or facing other treatment that contravenes international human rights obligations.

Second, there are several strategic considerations related to publicizing prisoner lists. While we do absolutely need more transparency and accountability, there are also legitimate reasons for caution and confidentiality. Some prisoners' situations may benefit from publicity and others may not. I worry about the message that may be conveyed if a case doesn't appear on the list, whatever the reason for that may be.

Having been involved over many decades in efforts to encourage Canadian diplomacy with respect to prisoner cases, including of Canadian citizens who are unjustly imprisoned abroad, a more pressing concern for me has been the failure and even refusal to provide meaningful information to family members, lawyers and civil society groups actively engaged on particular cases.

Instead of focusing only on a public list of prisoners' names, I would urge that Bill C-281 be amended to mandate the development of a clear strategy for Canadian government diplomacy on prisoner cases, perhaps to be included in the international human rights action plan, that incorporates the following standards. One would be to ensure consistency, including with respect to public advocacy. Two would be for stronger engagement with families, lawyers and civil society working on prisoner cases. Three would be to guide public reporting of the government's efforts, including the numbers of cases taken up, activities undertaken and the human rights concerns involved.

Thank you. Those are my comments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you very much, Mr. Neve.

Now we go to Ms. Harth.

You have five minutes as well. The floor is yours.

[Laura Harth, Campaign Director, Fundacion Safeguard Defenders]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the members of this committee for the opportunity to testify again on behalf of Fundacion Safeguard Defenders.

As you may know, we aim to counter grave human rights violations, including through the use of existing regulatory frameworks. This effort aims not only to hold perpetrators of human rights violations accountable but also to uphold the international rules-based order, which is firmly set within the confines of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

As Mr. Neve just rightly pointed out, this is something pertaining as much to foreign policy as to ensuring that those standards are upheld across societies back at home in our democracies.

Allow me, therefore, to dedicate this testimony to an issue pertaining to the Broadcasting Act, to which, we understand, an amendment is being proposed.

After the PRC's Xi Jinping came to power, CCTV and its global arm CGTN began to systematically broadcast forced confessions of human rights defenders, foreign targets and also non-politically motivated suspects.

Our 2018 report, “Scripted and Staged”, analyzed the recordings of 45 confession broadcasts between 2013 and 2018, including interviews with a dozen people who had been victims or the members of their families. Confessions are routinely made before trials, before any lawyers have been met and often even before formal arrests. Such confessions, which are written by the police, are extracted through threats, torture and fear, including the persecution of relatives and family members. They violate the fundamental rights to a fair trial, the presumption of innocence, the right to remain silent and the right not to self-incriminate.

As we managed to successfully demonstrate before the U.K.'s broadcasting regulator, Ofcom, China's Party media outlets, CGTN and CCTV, are not mere broadcasters of such confessions but active participants in their scripting and staging, thereby directly participating in the violation of internationally recognized human rights. Following our complaints, that same U.K. regulator imposed a series of fines on the broadcasters for their airing of such forced televised confessions. Other fines were imposed for their gravely biased reporting of the Hong Kong democracy protests.

In addition, we presented evidence on the direct editorial control of the outlets by the Communist Party of China, following a policy reform in 2018. It was evidence that CGTN was unable to negate.

For the interest of this committee, it sufficed to point to CGTN's annual corporate social responsibility reports, which repeatedly state its mission goal as that of upholding the Communist Party of China with Xi Jinping at its core. On that basis, and thanks to the U.K.'s applicable regulatory framework, Ofcom managed to remove their U.K. broadcasting licence in early 2021, as no channels that are directly owned or controlled by political parties may air in the U.K.

It is important to point out that similar complaints and letters by multiple victims of such forced televised confessions were sent to individual broadcasting operators airing some or all of CGTN and CCTV's content. Based on their corporate social responsibilities, such as under the UN's Global Compact, operators in Australia, Sweden and Norway autonomously decided to scrap the offerings from their packages. Formal regulatory complaints on forced televised confessions are still under way in France and Canada.

It is important to note that, while regulators in democratic countries are largely bound to the same human rights tenets, precise broadcasting regulations vary significantly, limiting the extent to which regulators are able to intervene. Nonetheless, as an organization, we have found that the regulatory action in these instances is a very impactful tool kit when it is used. We have seen CGTN, if not completely ending this behaviour, significantly reducing their televised airing of forced confessions.

CCTV, which has not been touched by regulatory action so far, has continued its producing and international airing of forced televised confessions unabated, including with 26 new forced televised confessions just in January of this year, which is the object of our latest complaint to the French regulator.

We therefore firmly support any efforts to beef up regulatory frameworks to ensure that broadcasting regulators have all the necessary tools to effectively act against such blatant abuses of human rights for propaganda and disinformation purposes in today's global media landscape.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you very much.

We now go to questions from the members. The first question goes to MP Chong.

You have four minutes.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for your opening statements.

I'm going to ask Ms. Harth some questions.

Mr. Neve, I'd love to ask you some questions, but I don't have a lot of time. I thought you made some very good points on the need for transparent reporting from Global Affairs Canada. I note that the Auditor General has reported this week highlighting exactly that with respect to the government's feminist international assistance policy, so thank you for that testimony.

I'd like to ask our witness about Safeguard Defenders' complaint with the CRTC. They registered a complaint regarding the broadcasting of forced confessions on CGTN in Canada. Can you tell us what the latest is with that complaint?

[Laura Harth]

Yes. Thank you for that question.

I won't go into too much detail, as obviously this is an ongoing complaint, but we lodged our original complaint in December 2019. This original complaint regarded one particular forced confession that was televised but also highlighted the broader use by CCTV-4 and CGTN of such forced televised confessions. Also going back to the CRTC's statements, when it had allowed the first airing of CCTV-4 and later CGTN in Canada, we sent a follow-up letter in 2021 when Ofcom made its decision. We also sent some follow-up letters by victims to, in particular, Rogers, which has been airing some of these channels.

The latest, we understood, at the beginning of this year, is that the Chinese counterpart has responded to some of the CRTC's questions. Following receiving that response from the CRTC, we have offered to respond to some of the claims that CGTN made in that response to the CRTC, but we have not received any further response at the moment.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Ms. Harth, what is taking so long? You mentioned in your opening comments, and it's been widely reported that Ofcom, the United Kingdom's CRTC, heard a similar complaint. Within a very short amount of time it made a decision to remove the licence for CGTN. You registered your complaint four years ago.

What is taking so long? It's almost half a decade now for this to be dealt with.

[Laura Harth]

With all due respect, Mr. Chong, I think that's a question that should be answered by the CRTC rather than us. We obviously asked several times.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

I appreciate that answer.

Last year there were often complaints about not only CGTN but also authoritarian state-controlled broadcasters like Russia Today, and I note that after the war in Ukraine broke out on February 24 of last year, within about a week and a half or two weeks, the Government of Canada, particularly the Minister of Canadian Heritage, issued an order in council ordering and directing the CRTC, under section 15 of the Broadcasting Act, to review RT's licence. Within weeks RT had its licence removed from the list of non-Canadian programming. I'm wondering why it's taking so long to deal with this complaint about CGTN and why the government isn't applying the same approach to CGTN under the existing Broadcasting Act.