Evidence of meeting #57 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was magnitsky.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Thank you very much, Ms. Deif.
We now move to Ms. Mathyssen.
You have three minutes. Thank you.
1:05 p.m.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank you, Mr. Turcotte. I'll put my first question to you.
The NDP absolutely agrees in terms of the elimination of section 11, and we will be putting forward an amendment at this committee to do so. You were very clear about this, but could you talk about the consequences if that elimination of section 11 isn't accomplished?
1:10 p.m.
As an Individual
The main consequence would be that Canada would finally be compliant with the convention itself and its obligations. The second result would be that we would be consistent with the position that has been taken by 110 other states parties to the convention. It would be extremely positive.
Now, in terms of effectiveness in combined operations with non-party states, I firmly believe that at the time—and this was 15 years ago—colleagues from the Department of National Defence believed that not having these exceptions would somehow compromise Canada's effectiveness.
We have 15 years of hindsight, and we have seen what legislation has been passed by our NATO allies and others who are like-minded and the fact that not one of them has included in their legislation such provisions. Certainly other countries such as the United Kingdom, France, Germany and others have the same level of concern about interoperability as we do, and it has not compromised their effectiveness nor do I think, in any real sense, has it compromised Canada's.
That's just to say that I don't believe those exceptions have in any way enabled Canada to play a more effective role in combined operations than if they had not been there.
Thank you.
1:10 p.m.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Ms. Deif, could you elaborate—if you actually have anything to elaborate on—on that same question?
March 30th, 2023 / 1:10 p.m.
Canada Director, Human Rights Watch Canada
Certainly we would agree that this amendment to section 11 is necessary. This is something we have been calling on Canada to do since the very beginning. This remains a key concern for us. I think we're pleased that one loophole, which is the issue around investment in cluster munitions, is going to be addressed by the current amendment in Bill C-281, but at the same time, there are other loopholes, which include section 11, that should be addressed.
1:10 p.m.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Okay. It goes fast.
In previous testimony, government witnesses talked about the fact that Canada would never condone the use of those cluster munitions, yet they don't push for that elimination in section 11. Why do you think that is? Could you comment on that quickly?
1:10 p.m.
As an Individual
Yes. We're actually trying to have it both ways. On one hand, we claim that our country is a state party in good standing, fully compliant with the convention, yet we continue to have in the act a list of exceptions.
As I say, it goes beyond aiding and abetting. There is a section of that wider section that actually enables the Canadian commander of the multinational force to order, authorize or direct the use of cluster munitions by non-party state forces—not by Canadians but by others. In this case, we are the author of the order, and non-party states become our agents. That is in no way consistent with what we negotiated in a 15-month period, 15 years ago now.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Thank you Mr. Turcotte.
We now go to Mr. Genuis. You have two minutes.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Deif, the conclusion I'm drawing from some of the back and forth about the section on prisoners of conscience is that it's not good enough for the government to say, “Just trust us”. There should be some mechanisms of pressure and accountability around the listing of those individuals—accountability to parliamentarians, to civil society and to the wider public.
At the same time there does need to be some margin for flexibility. There may be legitimate cases where, based on the wishes of the person involved—their family, their advocates and their own assessment of their interests—publication of their name doesn't make sense.
What we have to do in the amending process is come up with some procedure that does involve pressure on the government, that does involve the publication of names, in many cases bringing more sunlight to this and more accountability, but also some measure of flexibility.
Would you agree with that assessment? Do you think it would be useful to publish some names, while having others anonymized, based on the wishes of the families or a sincere calculation of the interests of the people involved?
1:10 p.m.
Canada Director, Human Rights Watch Canada
I agree that a hybrid type of solution makes the most sense, including some names where family members have agreed to it—those individuals are perhaps very public already in the public sphere—while including the number of others who are being advocated for. For example, it would be to just say that in China the Minister of Foreign Affairs is actively advocating for the release of these three said individuals, as well as six other detainees who will remain anonymous.
Having that type of information and content is really important for us. We have none of that at the moment. We have the “Voices at Risk” guidelines, but we have no real sense of when Canadian missions and officials overseas are actually meeting with prisoners or requesting to monitor trials. None of that data currently exists. That's the type of information we need.
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you to all the witnesses for their testimony.
I'd like to go to Mr. Browder.
Mr. Browder, I've personally followed much of what you've done over the years. I want to thank you for that. I'm not a permanent member of this committee, and I do feel it's quite a privilege to ask you a question.
In your opening comments you talked about why harmonization is so important among countries. Can you elaborate on that aspect of everything that you've worked on and why it's so important that countries co-operate and collaborate on this initiative?
Thank you.
1:15 p.m.
Head of the Global Magnitsky Justice Campaign, Author, and Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Hermitage Capital Management Ltd
Thank you very much. It's good to meet you here.
I'll use the real-life example of the Magnitsky case. Sergei Magnitsky was murdered for uncovering a $230-million corruption scheme. The people who stole that money and killed him kept that money in the west. We wanted to shut down the west to them, so that they couldn't use their bank accounts and they couldn't travel. We succeeded in the United States, Canada, the U.K. and Australia. For some reason, because of the European Union's unanimity requirement—Hungary objected—nobody was sanctioned in the European Union.
Although the sanctions have been quite effective and punishing on the individuals, they could still freely travel in and out of the European Union. That upsets me and it upsets Sergei's family. It's not right.
There are many other similar situations in all of these sanctions regimes, whereby they're sanctioned by one, two or three countries, but not by all of the countries. To be effective, you have to basically close off the world to human rights abusers and kleptocrats. To close off the world, everybody has to do it. This is probably one of the most important parts of the Magnitsky regime: creating a situation where we close off the world. I hope that this becomes a priority, a target and something that Canada takes seriously.
Of course, I'm working and saying the same thing to other governments. When I come here and I talk to you, I'm also saying the same thing to the U.K., the United States and the European Union. It's hard to get everybody to work together. I think this is something that's of very high importance.
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Thank you very much.
We now go to Madam Normandin. You have one minute remaining.
1:15 p.m.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Browder, you talked about the importance of countries harmonizing the implementation of the Magnitsky Act. Through Bill C-281, the committee could publicly discuss the application of a sanction against someone and make a recommendation to the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development.
Do you think this could hinder harmonization with other countries or, on the contrary, can it be done at the same time that the government is working on harmonization and the committee is working on selecting individuals?
1:15 p.m.
Head of the Global Magnitsky Justice Campaign, Author, and Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Hermitage Capital Management Ltd
I think it's very important for both things to happen. I think that Parliament is very important, and this committee is very important in holding the government's feet to the fire. Once the government's feet have been held to the fire and when the government has made a conscious, proactive decision to do something, it's very much incumbent on it to call up its counterparts in the United States, the U.K. and the European Union and say, “We have evidence. This evidence has been presented by our Parliament or by human rights activists. We're going to sanction these people, and we'd like you to do it as well.”
I think that in having both things happen, it's only good. There's no downside. There should be nobody to argue against this idea, other than people who just don't want to do more work in Global Affairs Canada by calling up their counterparts.
I think this has to be formalized.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Thank you.
For the final question, we go to Ms. Mathyssen. You get a minute. Take it away, please.
1:20 p.m.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Deif, I'd like to ask you a question.
The NDP will introduce an amendment requiring the government to develop an international human rights strategy. It would then allow for an annual report to address it.
Do you agree that such a strategy is necessary, and could you tell us a bit about why you would agree with that?
1:20 p.m.
Canada Director, Human Rights Watch Canada
A strategy is critical. As I mentioned earlier, we've had five different foreign ministers in the past seven years I've been in this role. That's significant transition. Having an overarching, multi-year strategy would mean that there would be some continuity on key human rights files. We wouldn't be reinventing the wheel with every transition. It's certainly critical to have a human rights strategy for that reason. It's also in order to create a sort of yardstick or benchmark to assess the minister's actions and activities with respect to human rights. That, I think, will be very critical.
I would just make a final point, if I have the time.
I know there's been a conversation around “prisoners of conscience” and the framing of the language around the human rights reporting. I agree with Alex Neve in terms of the language being about prisoners who are being detained in violation of international law. I think that's a much broader definition, which would also capture the two Michaels who were detained in China, for example. It would capture Canadian Iranian dual nationals and others who are detained on trumped up espionage, terrorism or treason charges who are not necessarily prisoners of conscience—they may just be ordinary engineers, doctors, etc.—but are dual nationals and are then detained. I think a larger, over-encompassing definition would be much more effective.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Thank you. That concludes this session.
Allow me to thank Mr. Turcotte, who is here in person, as well as Mr. Browder and Ms. Deif. We're very grateful for your time and testimony. Our apologies that this particular session was truncated because we had some votes in the House.
On that note, let me thank you again. We're looking forward to perhaps having you back at committee very soon. Thank you.
For the members, I just wanted to say that on Tuesday, April 18, which is the first session when we get back, we are having clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-281.
I was wondering whether it's the will of the committee to adjourn.
1:20 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.