Foreign Affairs Committee on March 30th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Welcome to meeting number 57 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 using Zoom.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of the members and the witnesses. 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 and please mute yourselves when you are not speaking. Interpretation for those on Zoom is at the bottom of your screens, and you have a choice of the floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

In accordance with our routine motion, I am informing the committee that all witnesses have completed the required initial connection tests in advance of our meeting.

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, the Broadcasting Act and the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act.

Because we had a vote, we've moved the panels around a bit. For the first panel, we will hear from witnesses until 12:30, and our second panel will go from 12:30 until 1:15.

Before introducing our panellists, I should point out that we were just advised by Professor Turp that he will be leaving us at 12:15, so to the extent that you have questions of him, please try to make sure that it happens as soon as possible.

It's my great pleasure to welcome to the committee, as an individual, Professor Daniel Turp, faculty of law, Université de Montréal. Also, from the Canada Tibet Committee, we have Sherap Therchin, who is the executive director, and he is here in person. Last but certainly not least, we're also hearing from Hong Kong Watch, and we have the pleasure of having with us Ms. Katherine Leung, who is a policy adviser.

Each of you will be provided five minutes for your opening remarks, after which we will allow the members to ask you questions.

When you're getting very close to the five-minute mark or when members are questioning you and the time is out, I will put this up. I'd appreciate it if each one of the witnesses tried to wrap up their comments as soon as possible after.

Given the schedule of our witnesses, we will start with Professor Turp.

Professor Turp, you have five minutes for your opening remarks.

[Daniel Turp, Emeritus Professor, Faculty of Law, Université de Montréal, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Members of Parliament, Madam Clerk, I would like to begin by greeting the members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development and expressing my pleasure at appearing again before a committee of the House of Commons, where I actually had the privilege of serving as the member of Parliament for Beauharnois-Salaberry during the 36th Parliament, from 1997 to 2000.

I am here in response to the invitation to appear, sent to me by your clerk, on Bill C-281. As you said, Mr. Chair, I will unfortunately have to leave you quickly because I have a commitment that I want to honour, like any member, or former member, who wants to keep their word.

In the brief time I have, in those five minutes, I will comment on one clause of the bill, the one that proposes that the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act be amended.

I also want to say that I agree with the other three clauses of Bill C-281 that propose to amend the three other acts mentioned in the bill. So it is clause 2 of the bill that I am particularly interested in, the one that seeks to amend section 10 of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act by adding subsection 10(4).

You will recall that this section provides that, in exercising his or her powers, duties and functions under the act in respect of the conduct of the external affairs of Canada, the minister is to publish, at least once in every calendar year: a report that outlines the measures taken to advance human rights internationally as part of Canada’s foreign policy; and a list that sets out the names and circumstances of the prisoners of conscience detained worldwide on whose release the Government of Canada is actively working.

First of all, I fully agree with the proposal to create a requirement for the Minister of Foreign Affairs to publish a report on the advancement of human rights around the world. In fact, Canada would not be the first country to publish such a report. The United States of America has been doing so for almost 50 years. Its latest report was released just a few days ago, on March 20. It is a report broken down by country, which includes comments on Canada and the situation of human rights in Canada. Such reports are also published by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and by a number of non-governmental organizations, most notably Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

In my view, the publication of such a report would provide an additional source of information on the state of human rights around the world, within the international community and across states, from a Canadian perspective, and would contribute to a better understanding of the state of human rights around the world.

On the subject of prisoners of conscience and the proposed list to be published, I would first suggest that you define the concept of “prisoners of conscience”. Amnesty International's definition might serve as inspiration:

Amnesty International considers a Prisoner of Conscience (POC) to be any person imprisoned or otherwise physically restricted (like house arrest), solely because of his/her political, religious or other conscientiously held beliefs, their ethnic origin, sex, color, language, national or social origin, economic status, birth, sexual orientation or other status, and who has not used violence or advocated violence or hatred.

I have a second and final point to make.

With respect to the list, I agree with the idea expressed during the review of Bill C-281, in particular the idea expressed by MP Christine Normandin, that exceptions should be allowed and names omitted from the list, and that mechanisms should be developed to do so because of the possible security breach for prisoners that could result from such publication.

Members of Parliament, Mr. Chair, these are a few observations. I hope they will be useful.

I wish you good deliberations. I regret that I won't be able to be with you for a longer period of time. I hope that Bill C-281 will be passed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Turp.

We next go to....

Yes, Mr. Zuberi.

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

On a point of information, Mr. Chair, I'm flabbergasted that we've starting the meeting when we just voted. This is unprecedented. We just finished a vote in the House of Commons, and we started a committee meeting moments after. We didn't even have time to walk to the committee room.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

We did have a quorum, and it was the will of the committee members who were here to get started given the time restraints we're facing—

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

This has never happened before.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Your point is well taken.

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

This has never happened before. I'm going to channel my inner Garnett: I just hope that this will never happen again.

I hope the vice-chair, Mr. Genuis, is there. I'm going to channel my inner Garnett and ask that this not happen again.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Your point is well taken. Thank you, Mr. Zuberi.

Now we will proceed with our second witness.

Mr. Therchin, you have five minutes for your opening remarks.

[Sherap Therchin, Executive Director, Canada Tibet Committee]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, honourable members of the committee, for inviting me to testify before this esteemed committee.

I would like to use this opportunity to speak of the arbitrary detention, torture and killings in Tibet. I would like to start by sharing the stories of some Tibetans who were detained, tortured and killed in recent years.

In July 2022, a 56-year-old Tibetan monk, Jigme Gyatso, died after a prolonged illness: multiple organ failure caused by the torture and inhumane treatment he endured in the prison. He was detained several times over a period of 15 years. The first time he was detained was in 2006, when he returned to Tibet after attending the teachings of His Holiness the Dalai Lama in India. He was detained for the second time in 2008, around the time when there were protests in Tibet during the 2008 Beijing Olympics. When he was detained for the second time, he was waiting near his monastery to repair his shoes.

Although he had not taken part in the 2008 Beijing Olympics protest, he was still detained based on his past history of being detained. After his release, Jigme created a video testimony providing a first-hand account of the torture he endured. In the video, Jigme reveals what he had told the Chinese police forces before his release. I quote: “If you kill me, then that will be the end of it. But if am able to leave and get the opportunity, I will speak about the torture I endured. I will bear witness as a truthful voice to the sufferings of my friends and report these events to the media.”

Likewise, in February 2021, a Tibetan tour guide named Kunchok Jinpa died in a hospital three months after being transferred from prison without the knowledge of his family. He was serving a 21-year prison sentence for sharing information with the outside world through the foreign media about a local environmental protest. The local sources said that he had a brain hemorrhage and body paralysis.

In the same year, a 19-year-old Tibetan monk, Tenzin Nyima, died after being released from prison in a comatose state. Tenzin was arrested, along with four other monks, for their peaceful demonstration near the local police authorities while demanding Tibetan independence. He was released in 2020, but was rearrested the same year for allegedly sharing the news of his arrest with Tibetans in exile.

In 2020, a 36-year-old mother, Lhamo, died, again shortly after being transferred to hospital from police custody. She was detained on the charge of sending money to her family in exile in India. Her body was immediately cremated, preventing any further investigation of her case.

Mr. Chair, there are many other Tibetan prisoners who died in prison or shortly after being released or transferred from prison. They were not terrorists and they were not separatists, nor were they dangerous to the state's security, as China accused them of being. They were mothers. They were entrepreneurs. They were tour guides. They were monks. They were singers who had dreams about leading a dignified life as Tibetans in their own lands.

Mr. Chair, what binds this story together is how they didn't have access to lawyers, how they didn't have access to their families while being detained, how none of them had an opportunity for a fair trial, how they were tortured and discriminated against just because they were Tibetans, and how none of their cases so far have been investigated and none of the perpetrators held accountable.

As indicated in the video testimony of Jigme Gyatso, the 56-year-old monk, they expect those of us in exile, those of us living in a free and democratic country like Canada, to raise the challenges and to talk about issues they faced.

They risk their lives in passing information to the outside world so that we would know about the reality of the situation in Tibet, so that we would know about the over one million Tibetan nomads being forcefully relocated, so that we would know about the over one million Tibetan children forced into boarding schools for political indoctrination, so that we would know about the destruction of Tibetan monasteries such as Larung Gar and Yarchen Gar, so that we would know about evictions of Tibetan monks and nuns, and so that those of us in exile, those of us in the free world, would know about the cultural genocide that is taking place in Tibet through the destruction of their language, religion and cultural identity.

Mr. Chair, the situation in Tibet under President Xi Jinping is dire and urgent. I request that this committee consider using tools that we have at our disposal, such as the Sergei Magnitsky Law and this Bill C‑281 to challenge and counter such blatant human rights violations. We cannot and must not let the perpetrators continue any more such crimes with impunity.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Therchin. Certainly, that was difficult testimony, but we're very grateful for that.

Now for our final witness, we will go to Ms. Leung.

Ms. Leung, you have five minutes as well. The floor is yours.

[Katherine Leung, Policy Adviser, Hong Kong Watch]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is Katherine Leung, and I am the policy adviser for Hong Kong Watch in Canada.

Hong Kong Watch supports the heart of Bill C-281, which would make it easier for parliamentarians to recommend foreign officials who should be included on a sanctions list, including those guilty of the ongoing human rights crackdown in Hong Kong. As committee members will no doubt be aware, many of these Hong Kong officials have links to Canada, including owning property, having family members with foreign passports and having been educated here. The bill would also rightly increase the government's powers to ban state propaganda outfits operating in Canada, like CGTN, which spread disinformation and seek to interfere in our public debates. Such a ban would bring Canada in line with like-minded partners like the U.K., which banned CGTN in February 2021.

This specific amendment to the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act is a welcome provision. As I am sure members are aware, Hong Kong has over 1,000 political prisoners at this time, and this number is only growing. We note that there are several political prisoners who previously held Canadian citizenship or who have family links to Canada. The Hong Kong authorities have jailed so many political prisoners in the last several years that overcrowding in prisons is a growing problem. The authorities are running out of space to put the activists, journalists and trade unionists they have incarcerated.

Hong Kong has one of the largest populations of political prisoners in the world, with over 10,000 politically related arrests since 2019. We urge Global Affairs to consider better tools to track and identify those prisoners of conscience who have links to Canada. We believe that this new provision will allow NGOs, like Hong Kong Watch, to be better equipped to advocate for the release of people whose only crime is to fight for the betterment of their country.

With regard to the provision for the Sergei Magnitsky Law, we should be proud to be one of the first countries in the world to adopt a Magnitsky sanctions regime, which allows us to target and hold to account individual human rights violators. It is, therefore, sad to note that not a single entity or individual from China has currently been sanctioned by Canada under the Magnitsky law. As members will be aware, Canada has sanctioned just four individuals and one entity in China for human rights violations in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region under the Special Economic Measures Act. We have no shortage of reasons to sanction Chinese and Hong Kong officials. In fact, parliamentarians have repeatedly, in the form of letters and committee reports, called on the government to do so.

Sanctions are a tool for Canada to hold human rights violators accountable. Tools only work when they are used. From what we have seen, there is an inconsistency in the government's approach. It has introduced a Magnitsky sanctions regime that it claims is world leading, yet it refuses to use it, instead relying on SEMA. The sole purpose of the Magnitsky law is to protect human rights on a global scale, whereas SEMA exists as an economic sanctions scheme and is not intended to be used solely against human rights violations.

The proposal of this bill to create a mechanism by which the Minister of Foreign Affairs is required to respond to recommendations made by a parliamentary committee is a welcome step forward. This will not only serve as a way to incentivize the government to utilize this tool for its intended purpose but will also provide transparency on the reasons behind such decisions. After all, sanctions do not sit in a vacuum away from wider policy-making. They are political in nature and have a significant impact on the bilateral relations between countries. The decision and reasoning to not sanction an individual human rights violator is as important as the rationale for doing so. This provision of the bill will help inform the public, civil society groups and NGOs on the wider thinking when it comes to the government's sanctions policy and its commitments to uphold human rights.

Turning to the amendment to the Broadcasting Act, I believe Canadians would find it reasonable that regimes that are committing genocide or ongoing human rights violations should not be given a platform on Canadian airwaves. The distribution of state propaganda from countries that grossly violate human rights is not in the public interest. For example, CGTN is under the control of the central propaganda department of the Chinese Communist Party. It is a tool of propaganda, disinformation and the violation of human rights. In 2019, CGTN aired a forced-confession video of Hong Kong activist Simon Cheng that was recorded under duress and which he was coerced into filming as a condition for his release. CGTN has also broadcast blatant disinformation, denying the Uyghur genocide, mischaracterizing the Hong Kong pro-democracy movement as riots rather than peaceful protests, and claiming that COVID-19 originated in the U.S. in contradiction to scientific evidence.

An important point to raise is this: Who is on the receiving end of this propaganda? In Canada, it is largely Chinese immigrant communities that are consuming this. To allow CGTN to continue operating on public, state-owned Canadian airwaves is to allow Beijing's propaganda to misinform, propagandize and have direct influence on Chinese-speaking Canadians.

In closing, I will say that we are supportive of Bill C-281 as a way to increase the government's accountability and transparency in Canada's role in upholding human rights internationally.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you very much, Ms. Leung.

Yes, Mr. Zuberi.

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

On a point of personal privilege, I'd just like to note for the record that if I did not have my computer today, and my phone, I would not have been able to participate in this committee meeting.

The only reason I'm able to participate in this meeting right now is that I have my laptop. My phone is actually in the shop, and I cannot vote remotely, so it would have been physically impossible for me, if somebody did not message me on my personal cell to tell me that this committee had started, for me to participate—as a member of this committee—in this meeting.

This meeting should not have started within 10 minutes of our completing the vote counts.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Mr. Zuberi, again, as I indicated earlier—

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

The Conservatives have filibustered for seven meetings. This will be heard.

I implore that this does not happen ever again. It would not be physically possible—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Mr. Zuberi, your point is well taken.

As was indicated, this has happened previously as well, when we had a tight schedule. If there is a quorum, the members can say, “Can we resume?”

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

The Conservative Party has not respected this committee. It has filibustered this committee for seven meetings, and our witnesses in this committee have been sidelined and have been disrespected by the Conservative Party. This is a matter of parliamentary privilege and the way this organization functions.

We cannot even have witnesses if this organization doesn't function properly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Zuberi.

Now we will proceed with questions to—

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

Mr. Chair, perhaps I can just comment on the question of privilege. I'm not sure what this has to do with the Conservative Party. The member has raised a question of privilege, and it's the prerogative of the chair to rule on it—

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

This has everything to do with you personally and the Conservative Party.

You have filibustered this committee for seven meetings in the past. This has everything to do with—

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

The member raised a question of privilege, and the chair can rule on that question of privilege or he can reserve judgment for later, but I'm not the chair. Just to be clear, I'm not the chair.

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

You have filibustered this meeting for seven meetings in the past. It's been documented and reported upon.

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

That's not what we're talking about today.

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

That's a fact.