Foreign Affairs Committee on April 25th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Welcome to meeting number 60 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.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those who are participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike. Please mute yourselves when you are not speaking.

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

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

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, November 16, 2022, the committee now 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 (Sergei Magnitsky Law), the Broadcasting Act and the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act.

It is my pleasure to once again welcome officials who are here to support us as we consider clause-by-clause for Bill C-281.

From the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, we're grateful to once again have Ms. Ashlyn Milligan, deputy director, non-proliferation and disarmament. We also have Ms. Jennifer Keeling, acting executive director, human rights and indigenous affairs.

From the Department of Canadian Heritage, we're grateful to once again have Ms. Amy Awad, senior director, marketplace and legislative policy.

Finally, from the Department of National Defence, we have Major-General Paul Prévost, director of staff, strategic joint staff, who is kindly and graciously joining us via Zoom.

I will open the floor in relation to the subamendment to G-2, which was under consideration when we last adjourned debate, on Thursday, April 20, 2023.

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

I have a point of order, Chair.

My understanding was that there was unanimous consent to withdraw the subamendment and the amendment, and that the government has an alternative amendment to propose.

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

We would agree to working at having both subamendment and amendment withdrawn and then presenting a new amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Is there unanimous consent for that?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

(Subamendment withdrawn)

(Amendment withdrawn)

Mr. Zuberi.

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

I would like to move G-2.1.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Yes, please.

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

We're dealing with the same text that we were dealing with the last time. It relates to the Broadcasting Act, amended by adding the following under subsection 22(1):

Restriction—broadcasting undertakings subject to influence

There would then be a deletion of the word “amended” in the first line and an insertion after “foreign programming, that is”. The insertion is:

—despite any measure that the Commission could take under this Part—

It continues with the original text, “vulnerable to being” adding, “significantly influenced”. The term “significantly” is added.

The rest of the text remains intact.

In terms of motivating this, there are a number of points that are important.

One is that the language removes the term “amended”, which is actually a salutary piece of language because it allows for the problem to be rectified through an amendment to the actual documents in question. Therefore the problem would be solved.

Two is that, with respect to the renewal or the issuance of a licence, the CRTC has other supervisory regulatory powers. The insertion of “despite any measure that the Commission could take under this Part” would acknowledge that the CRTC already has embedded in it some measures that allow for the problem that we're addressing here to be solved. It simply acknowledges that that there are internal mechanisms.

Three, the term “significantly” is an important addition to the text that's already there, because the influence that we are looking at should be significant. We need to have a measure around this and not have a minor influence being the threshold. There should be a significant influence that is a threshold with respect to this act.

This doesn't take away from anything that Mr. Lawrence is putting forth. This simply tightens it up a little and makes it clearer. It keeps the full spirit of what Mr. Lawrence is bringing forth with respect to legislation in this particular section.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you very much.

Before going to Mr. Genuis, I just wanted to ask for the benefit of all members whether the chapeau in G-2 remains. By “the chapeau”, I mean the first section, which reads “That Bill C-281, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 3 to 14 on page 3 with the following”.

Is that part of your amendment?

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Okay. Thank you for clarifying that.

We now go to Mr. Genuis, please.

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

Okay. I may need a clarification from the clerk. My understanding of the amendment is the same as...because we're just working on the fly a bit here.

Although certain other language is removed and replaced, my understanding of the effective change that this amendment would make is that it would only remove the word “amended” from the existing section, where it says, “No licence shall be issued...or renewed”, add in the words “despite any measure that the Commission could take under this Part” and add in the word “significantly” before “influence”.

There are no other additions or removals in terms of the effect of the amendment. Is that correct, from the clerk's understanding?

[Philippe Méla, Legislative Clerk]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

That's my understanding as well.

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

Okay, that's excellent.

Directionally, we are broadly comfortable with this. I would propose just one subamendment. That is, I would replace the word “significantly” with the word “meaningfully”, which is, I think, a somewhat lower standard than “significantly” but a higher standard than simply “influenced by”. We don't want the influence to be trivial or tangential, but I think the standard for influence could be something less than significant. If you have someone who is involved in genocide who is able to meaningfully influence broadcasting, I think that is enough of a standard.

I would propose that small wording change as a subamendment. Hopefully we can get to a good result.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In what I received, I see that the word “significantly” is to be replaced with “meaningfully”. Since I only have it in English, I'd like to know the difference in meaning in French so that I can understand. Can someone help me?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Mr. Genuis.

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

I was trying to get help from Google Translate, but unfortunately, the Google translation of “meaningfully” in French is “significativement”.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, Oh!

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

Is there a linguist on the officials' panel, or someone who can help us out with this?

In English, clearly, what I'm trying to arrive at is that “significant” implies a level of influence that is almost domineering in the outcome, whereas “meaningful” implies an impact that is more than trivial and less than domineering.

Maybe Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe can suggest the appropriate French.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

No. The point I was trying to make is that “significantly” and “meaningfully” translate into the same word in French. I believe you can argue about what those words mean in English, but in French, Mr. Genuis' subamendment won't change anything.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

Mr. Oliphant.

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

I feel it's exactly the same in English. It's subjective, not absolute. However, I can ask the officials if there's a difference in interpretation, but maybe it's too hard to find an answer now.

Is there any difference between “significantly” and “meaningfully” for the purposes of enacting Bill C‑281?