Foreign Affairs Committee on April 18th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 58 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 and please mute yourselves when you are not speaking.

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

I remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

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.

It is now my pleasure to welcome officials who will be supporting this clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-281.

From the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, we have Ms. Marie-Josée Langlois, the director general, strategic policy branch; Mr. Jeffrey Marder, the executive director of human rights and indigenous affairs; and Ms. Ashlyn Milligan, the acting executive director for non-proliferation, disarmament and space.

We have, from the Department of Canadian Heritage, Ms. Amy Awad, senior director, marketplace and legislative policy.

I'd like to provide members of the committee with some instructions and a few comments on how the committee will proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-281.

As the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there are amendments to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further member wishes to intervene, the amendment will be voted on.

Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill or in the package each member has received from the clerk.

Members should note that amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee.

I will go slowly to allow all members to follow the proceedings properly. Amendments have been given an alphanumeric number in the top right corner to indicate which party submitted them. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once an amendment is moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended.

When a subamendment is moved to an amendment, it is voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title and the bill itself, and if amendments are adopted, an order to reprint the bill may be required so that the House has a proper copy for use at report stage.

Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. That report contains only the text of any adopted amendments, as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

At this point, allow me to thank the officials for their attendance and guidance during this clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-281.

Each of you has received the package. It's fairly copious. It's about 30 pages. I would recommend everyone follow these.

Going to the agenda, we will go through clause-by-clause study. Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, which is the short title, will be postponed.

(On clause 2)

Would anyone like to speak to clause 2?

Go ahead, Mr. Oliphant.

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

I'm going to be proposing an amendment in clause 2. You will see that in the package as G-1, an amendment to clause 2, and I will read it into the record. I move:

That Bill C-281, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 1 to line 2 on page 2 with the following:

(4) At least once in every calendar year, the Minister is to publish a report that outlines the measures that the Minister has taken to advance human rights internationally as part of Canada’s foreign policy.

That is the amendment I am proposing. It is listed as G-1, as I said.

In support of that amendment, I want to reiterate that Canada is committed to supporting wholeheartedly the vital and courageous work of human rights defenders. I want to thank our officials who are with us today, who continually advise us on how we can best support those human rights defenders. However—and we heard this in testimony from more than one witness—if the government is required to publicize a list that sets out the names and circumstances of prisoners of conscience or human rights defenders who are detained anywhere in the world or persons detained in contravention to human rights standards, even while we are supporting them very, very strongly, it's not guaranteed that this will actually help them, and in fact we believe it could hinder their future.

A publicized list that sets out the names and circumstances of such prisoners of conscience or human rights defenders detained worldwide or of persons detained in contravention of human rights standards could actually impede our diplomatic actions and could cause them grave harm. Also, Canada's support for these individuals could potentially endanger their safety, and in more serious cases, could actually lead to their deaths. Moreover, the colloquial term “prisoner of conscience” does not have an agreed international or domestic legal definition, so we're concerned about that. It's even in lower case, as though we understand it; I think we have an intuitive sense of it, but this is a piece of legislation, not a report, Mr. Chair, and that's why we are concerned. We recommend that the listing requirement be removed.

We also heard from Alex Neve, formerly of Amnesty International, that it's not only the listing of people that could cause them harm, but that not listing others whom Canada is not necessarily engaged with but other countries may be engaged with could further their harm as well, because a government could then assume that they're not a prisoner of conscience because they're not on Canada's list, so we want to remove the listing requirement.

We recommend that the listing requirement be removed and replaced with generalized information on activities taken in support of human rights defenders in the annual human rights report. I would say too that I think the helpful part of the bill is requiring that report. We recognize it will take a lot of work and it will take effort, but we think that is important. It could include reference to emblematic cases, cases that perhaps have been resolved satisfactorily or cases that have not been resolved satisfactorily, when there is consent from a number of parties, including the individual themself and their family, and also include a contextual understanding of the nature of the incarceration or the detention. We want to do that so that no harm will be caused.

We recognize that there are families that would like the names of prisoners of conscience or human rights defenders to be listed. We recognize that this is something.... They can list them at any time in their own lives on social media or in broader media, but government has a different responsibility, and the government responsibility here is to ensure all of our activities will not cause harm but will actually help the people who we are trying to help.

We continually do these sorts of cases. I've been involved in a number of them myself when members of the opposition or members of our own caucus have come to us to ask for help with a particular case. It could be a Canadian who's detained. It could be a permanent resident of Canada who's detained. It could be a non-citizen who's detained, someone who has no relationship to Canada but is working as a human rights defender, or a journalist who is also a human rights defender, or anyone else.

The government takes that seriously. We work through our missions and through qualified personnel to do that, but we also recognize that megaphone diplomacy in this way is often counterproductive to what we all want to do, which is to protect their lives and also often to further their cause. Even if we disagree with their cause, we may want to always ensure that their lives are protected.

That's why we're moving G-1. It significantly reduces clause 2—I recognize that—but it will require the minister to publish a report that will show what the minister, whoever the minister is at any time, is doing to advance human rights as part of our foreign policy.

Those are my comments on G-1.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you very much, Mr. Oliphant.

We now go to Mr. Genuis.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I will be brief. I agree with some of the things Mr. Oliphant said. I agree that there is some benefit to amending this section. We do not support the government's amendment here, though, as we feel that it wholly guts the section. We would prefer an amendment that provides some flexibility around listing but still requires the government to be more transparent around aspects that can be revealed.

In the vast majority of cases, having that information out there as a means of holding the government accountable and as a means of projecting the importance of these cases is valuable. We will be supportive of other amendments that make this section more flexible but don't go fully in the direction of gutting any requirement to provide any information whatsoever in relation to prisoners of conscience.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

We now go to Mr. Bergeron.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

I will try to be brief. I simply want to say that I understand many of the points the honourable member is making, but for a variety of reasons, I won't be voting for the amendment.

First, some may view the amendment as an attempt by the government to reduce, rather than strengthen, accountability. In a democracy, that isn't a particularly good thing.

Second, Mr. Neve, for instance, was not opposed to the idea of publishing a list, far from it. Concerns have been raised about publishing a list like this, and we take those concerns seriously. I, myself, raised the issue with Mr. Neve. We are sensitive to those concerns, but an effort to minimize the content of a potential report on the measures taken to advance human rights internationally may be a bit much. I realize the amendment was deemed in order, but I still don't think it is in keeping with the spirit of the bill before us.

For those reasons, I will vote against this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Would anyone else like to speak to this?

I do understand that a number of different amendments have been put forward with respect to clause 2. I have the benefit of having spoken to the legislative assistant, who I suspect is very well known to all of you.

I have been advised that if G-1 is adopted, NDP-1, CPC-1 and BQ-1 cannot be moved due to a line conflict, since any given line can be amended only once. I thought I would advise all the members of this point before we decide whether G-1 shall carry.

Go ahead, Mr. Oliphant.

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

Further to our discussion on that, I recognize this.

I would like to give a chance.... There are two questions I have that I'm not sure we got from officials. We saw officials early in the consideration of the bill. I would turn to the officials to ask them—non-partisan officials—about their understanding of the implications of publishing a list of names of human rights defenders and prisoners of conscience whom Canada may be assisting.

Also, have they had discussions with the Privacy Commissioner? Perhaps our legislative counsel could help us understand whether there's been any consideration of privacy laws that could be implicated in those discussions.

Those are two questions I would ask, in order to help me understand this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Is there any particular official you had in mind, or should I just open it up to—

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

I would say Mr. Marder, probably, but they can decide among themselves.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Mr. Marder, the floor is yours.

[Jeffrey Marder, Executive Director, Human Rights and Indigenous Affairs, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for the questions.

As indicated, publishing a list.... Whenever Canada engages in support of human rights defenders or people imprisoned abroad in violation of international human rights standards, we do it in partnership with other countries or sometimes with civil society partners. The strategy to approach the engagement on each individual case is decided collectively, based on local situations and the particularities of each individual case.

Typically, we come up with a strategy based on opportunities for escalation. In some cases, indeed, if someone is imprisoned against their will abroad, it would be important to go public with that information. However, typically, we come up with a strategy based on an escalatory approach, potentially with naming an individual case as the final step.

Being forced to publish names in cases we were engaged on could threaten the actual engagement on the specific case. It could also jeopardize partnerships with other countries that are critical to our engaging on cases. If other countries partnering with Canada were aware that we would, by force or legislatively, be obligated to publish the names of individuals on whose behalf we were engaged, it could potentially make them more reluctant to engage with Canada collectively on supporting these cases.

Also, as indicated, we have not been in conversations with the Privacy Commissioner, but we would certainly have to be guided by the Privacy Act, which could place limits on the amount of information allowed to be divulged.

Basically, in terms of an overall strategy, which is guided by partnerships with other countries on the ground, being forced to proactively publish information on individual names could jeopardize those partnerships and our ability to engage effectively on cases.

I would note that quiet diplomacy should not be underestimated as a critical factor in engaging on individual cases. Some countries that typically would not be traditional partners of Canada—I would refer to them as “non-traditional partners”—take approaches that favour quiet diplomacy, as opposed to louder megaphone diplomacy. These sorts of broad partnerships, in many instances, are critical to effective engagement on individual cases. I would cede that those kinds of partnerships could be put particularly at risk by an obligation to publish not just names but also details of activities we were engaged on in individual cases.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Marder.

Would any other official like to speak to these two issues as well?

No. Okay.

Yes, go ahead, Mr. Oliphant.

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

As a follow-up to that, I know there are a series of like-minded countries—I sometimes call them “the usual suspects”—that we engage with on these files. Then there are, as Mr. Marder said, other countries that may not be the usual partners that we engage with. In either of those types of countries, do we know of legislation that would require them to publish lists of people with whom they are working?

[Jeffrey Marder]

I am not aware of any legislative obligations to publish lists of names of people on whose behalf other governments are actively engaged.

I would note this: Many of you are probably familiar with the comprehensive human rights reports published every year by the State Department. These detail human rights situations in countries around the world. Based on my observations and my reading of many of those reports, I am not aware—other than emblematic cases, perhaps, which are broad public knowledge—of any detailed information on specific cases being acted upon.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Now we will have to decide whether G-1 shall—

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

Mr. Chair, I have a question.

Let's say hypothetically that we enact this list right now—or in the future, I should say—and let's say that Canada is advocating on behalf of non-citizens. Given the information you have right now, do you think that the scope of this list would require us to put out the names of non-citizens, non-permanent residents and people who have no status in Canada, be it a visa, residency or citizenship? Let's say we're doing quiet diplomacy with other partners.

[Jeffrey Marder]

My understanding of the way it is written is that we would be required.... The requirement is to publish the lists of names of all—I think the term is “prisoners of conscience”—on whose behalf the Government of Canada is actively engaged to support them or seek their release. It seems quite clear-cut and broad.

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

To be clear, I guess that would include anybody, including non-citizens, non-permanent residents and people who don't have a visa in Canada.

[Jeffrey Marder]

That's my understanding.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

All right, so—

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

If I can opine slightly, we've heard a lot of testimony in this committee around the delicate nature of this issue, and all of us, I think, take this issue of championing and advocating for individuals in extremely oppressive circumstances very seriously. I'd ask the committee members to reflect upon the fact that if we publish those names, we may cause very serious and irreparable harm to them.

I would ask the committee members to err on the side of caution in this particular instance, given that it's a substantive change that can cause very serious damage to individuals, including their lives. Many of us around this table have advocated for individuals privately and publicly. That's not to take away from the intent of Mr. Lawrence's bill; it's just a reflection born out of the fruit of testimony. I personally am quite hesitant to vote in favour of the original text. I ask that we support this amendment as a result of that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you very much, Mr. Zuberi.

I think the other thing we should highlight, as Mr. Marder said, is that no other country is known to do otherwise and provide a full list of all the individuals who are being assisted and of the other countries that engage in terms of speaking up on their behalf, given that Canada likes to reach out to other like-minded countries to assist.

With that having been said—

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

I have one final thing.

The salutary aspect of this amendment is that it still requires a reporting mechanism. It still requires a reporting mechanism, which does advance the issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Zuberi.

Go ahead, Ms. McPherson.