Foreign Affairs Committee on March 28th, 2023

[Alex Neve]

Thank you very much.

You've summarized very well that there are times when publicity is absolutely the best strategy and times when it is perhaps not, even for civil society. I think there's an assumption that civil society is always full throttle to take everything very public, but oftentimes we do our advocacy quietly and behind the scenes.

That said, why I was calling for the need for a strategy in this area is that I think, if we could have some very careful thinking about developing more consistent guidelines that help governments deliberate as to when publicity is beneficial and not, and what considerations are legitimate considerations and what are not.... Rightly or wrongly, I think there's often a perception that some of the adversity to publicity is that it will make things uncomfortable or more difficult and put more pressure on the government if its efforts are out there in the public domain. I'd argue that's not so much a legitimate consideration. I think what you highlighted—concerns that sometimes the publicity may make things more difficult or even put the prisoner at risk—is what we need to consider.

Doing that work on the basis of broad consultations would be very beneficial. It would also give an opportunity to think of other strategic considerations that need attention in this area, such as the nature of the relationship with family members.

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

Would you support this legislation as it stands?

[Alex Neve]

I think it needs amendment, but I think amendment to improve it.

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

Thank you.

I like the art of this. Sometimes it's an art, and it's lengthy conversations going between civil society and government and even within government. Sometimes people in government have to push our own government. We've found ways of imperfectly doing that.

Thank you for doing that for the last several decades.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Oliphant.

We will now go to Mr. Bergeron.

You have a minute and a half, sir.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Neve, I couldn't agree more with you when you say that governments, no matter what their colour, hesitate to intervene when it's a country like China. Notwithstanding that, the Magnitsky Law was not in force when the Conservative government was in power. But the Liberal government applied sanctions under the Special Economic Measures Act.

In the current circumstances, now that there is this new law, what is there to prevent the government from applying sanctions under the Magnitsky Law? Would it be, as has been claimed, that everything needs to be coordinated with countries that share the same values?

[Alex Neve]

It's a good question, and I wish I had the answer.

I think your last point there is certainly a consideration, and I think it's a legitimate consideration that coordination with other countries, while it should not be the reason not to impose sanctions—I have too many “nots” there—certainly is valuable in strengthening sanctions if and when they are imposed, especially for us. We're not a big player. We're not an insignificant player, but we're not a big player. For Canada to be able to go out in coordination with other countries certainly strengthens things.

I think the obstacles, especially with respect to China, as I said earlier, tend to be more political than principled, unfortunately. I don't think it's generally because there's a feeling that the sanctions aren't appropriate or that they are not backed up by sufficient human rights concerns. Quite the contrary, I think there's usually wide recognition of the seriousness of the human rights concerns, but there's that reticence and nervousness, which, as I've said, is something we have seen from governments of both political stripes over the last 15 to 20 years with respect to China, of not wanting to hit hard.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you.

We go to the final question and Ms. McPherson.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

It's always my delight that I get to have the very final question.

Mr. Neve, I'm going to ask you two questions and then leave the rest of the time for you. Both questions are about amendments that I'll be putting forward.

The first question is, given the challenge of using the term “prisoners of conscience”, would you agree with wording like “prisoners detained worldwide in contravention of international human rights law and standards”? That's the first question.

Second, I will be introducing an amendment to eliminate the section 11 piece from the Canadian cluster munitions act. This is the section, of course, as you know, that allows for Canadian Forces to transport and order the use of cluster munitions when on joint operations with non-party states. Would you support such an amendment?

[Alex Neve]

Absolutely.

With respect to cluster munitions, I've done field research in a number of countries in sub-Saharan Africa. I've interviewed the survivors of cluster munitions attacks. I have seen unexploded and exploded cluster munitions on the ground. They are odious. They belong nowhere in military operations, and Canada shouldn't have the slightest opening that would ever involve us in operations that even contemplate the possibility of cluster munitions being used, so I'm very supportive of that.

With respect to the amendment to maybe tighten up and improve upon the language currently focusing on “prisoners of conscience”, I think that proposal is a good one. I might go a little bit further, though. I think the focus on detention risks leaving out some situations—for instance, Dong Guangping's case. We actually don't know if he's detained right now. We know he has disappeared. We know he was arrested and abducted.

I think in my comments I suggested something along the lines of “individuals who are detained or experiencing other treatment in contravention of international human rights standards”, just to make sure the ambit is broad enough to capture all cases of concern.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you.

I believe that's my time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you very much.

On that note, I want to thank you, Mr. Neve, and to thank you, Madam Harth, for being here with us to speak on the issue of Bill C-281. We very much appreciate your time, your expertise and your perspectives. Thank you.

Members, we will be going in camera for committee business. Those of you who are joining us virtually can leave and then join us again through the hyperlink that was just emailed to you. Hopefully, we can do it in a couple of minutes.

[Proceedings continue in camera]