Foreign Affairs Committee on April 20th, 2023

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

Yes. I could stop for a second.

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

I am considering challenging it because I am reading the definition of genocide in Canada. Under Canadian law, it says that:

genocide means an act or omission committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, an identifiable group of persons, as such, that at the time and in the place of its commission, constitutes genocide according to customary international law or conventional international law or by virtue of its being criminal

I would say that by harmonizing this bill with other laws in Canada, we are not going outside the scope of the bill. We are actually attempting to harmonize it, because there is nothing in Canadian law that says the determination of genocide....

We can make a motion in the House about genocide, but for an act to have effectiveness in the world, it needs to follow Canadian law. Right now, under Canadian law, the Parliament does not determine genocide. We actually have a set of conventions that Canada has signed and agreed to, and there are international laws. We do not determine cases of genocide in the House of Commons: We opine on them and we make statements about them. That's what we do as parliamentarians. To actually have that determination of genocide have effect in our world, in Canada, as a country, successive governments and successive Parliaments have said that it needs to be “according to customary international law or conventional international law or by the virtue of its being criminal”.

Criminality in Canada, the last time I understood it, was still determined by a court of law, not by Parliament. Parliament writes laws, but we don't determine whether or not a law has been broken. That's why we have three branches of government. That's why we have an executive branch, a legislative branch and a parliamentary branch.

I think it's very important for us to say that this amendment to the law is actually in scope because it is following a harmonization of law. As such, I would challenge the chair's ruling on that.

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

I have a point of order on that, Mr. Chair.

We had arguments that were made that I think are outside of the rubric we're supposed to be on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

[Inaudible—Editor] challenge it just as to [Inaudible—Editor]

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

That was actually the point I was making. There is not supposed to be debate on it. Let's vote on it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Okay. Let's vote on the challenge.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Ariane Gagné-Frégeau]

It is yeas six, nays five.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

I may be wrong, but I think the clerk miscounted the votes. Can we have a recount, please?

[The Clerk]

It is six nays, five yeas. The ruling is overturned.

(Ruling of the chair overturned [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

It's overturned, yes.

He can't amend it. I think someone else has to amend it.

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

I have a point of order.

I do believe that what now happens—and it can be confirmed with the clerk—is that because your ruling was overturned, we now debate G-2 as an acceptable amendment. It still may be defeated, but at least it's now on the floor to be debated.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

I think Mr. Zuberi indicated he wanted to amend it.

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

No, actually, let's start with this one.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I would like to add to the bill.

It's in paragraph 1.1(a), where it starts with “a foreign state”. I will read it out to you:

a foreign state or a national of or person in a foreign state, as those terms are defined in section 2 of the Special Economic Measures Act, that is the subject of an order or a regulation made under section 4 of that act or that has been found to have committed genocide by

Here is where I'm going to add “the Senate, the House of Commons, or both Houses of Parliament,”.

Then it goes back to:

a court or tribunal in Canada, the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court or court or tribunal established under the authority of an international organization of states,

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

I want to speak very strongly in support of Ms. McPherson's subamendment. We heard some sort of pre-argumentation around this issue by Mr. Oliphant, so I want to respond to some of that, as well.

The process by which Canada has come to recognize genocides has been through votes of the House of Commons. We place a great deal of significance in the debates and the votes around them. The recognition of genocide entails legal obligations for us as a country under the Genocide Convention.

There are many barriers and challenges that prevent cases of ongoing genocide from being adjudicated by judicial bodies. There are mechanisms by which states can interfere. There are states that may not be party to some of the courts that are referenced. We've seen this tactic in other countries, where the argument is made, “Well, we can't act on genocide unless genocide is recognized by a court.” A court needs to recognize the genocide, but then there isn't a court that has the tools and the capacity to recognize genocide in a particular case, so they just do nothing.

That's not acceptable to me. I don't think that should be acceptable to honourable members. We need to have a process whereby the people's representatives can make that determination so that the determination has meaning and value.

The implication of Mr. Oliphant's arguments is that when the House of Commons recognizes a genocide, it's kind of just a group of people making a statement. He's saying, yes, that's his view, but that's not my view. My view is that when the people's representatives say that a genocide is happening in the world—

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, could I get a copy of.... Right now we're dealing with an amendment to our amendment—a subamendment from the NDP—that I like, but I don't have it in front of me. I don't think it's been given to us in a package, unless I'm missing an NDP-dash-something.

Mr. Genuis is talking to our amendment, but we need to be talking about the subamendment.

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

I was. I was speaking in favour of the subamendment.

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

Okay. I just need to have a copy of it, though, before I can actually listen to it clearly.

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

I've made my point, so I'll conclude my remarks there unless people have questions or follow-ups. Recognition of genocide by the House or the Senate should mean something. This is a way of enforcing that this is a meaningful recognition, and not just a group of people saying something.

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

I'm reading the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act....

I'm still confused by the NDP amendment. I'm struggling to relate it to the amendment that's on the floor. I just need some help.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

I will suspend for two or three minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Friends, let's resume. Everyone has seen the subamendment to this amendment. Should we put the subamendment to a vote?

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

I think where we're at is that we're going to seek agreement that we stand this section of the bill again and move now to clause 5. Because we don't all have responsibilities for the area, which is really Canadian Heritage, and we have critics involved in that who are not us, we want to take that back. I think we are working towards a solution. I'm getting this part cleaned up, probably even in scope.

We move that we stand this section. Do we have unanimous consent that we stand it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Yes, and we move to the next one.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Do we need unanimous consent to go to the next clause? Why would we even go to the next clause, though? Would it be to give the government an opportunity to put forward a new amendment, one that would respect the spirit of the legislation, since it challenged your ruling that this amendment does not respect the spirit of the legislation? The government will have to live with its decision. We have to stay on this one.