Evidence of meeting #61 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 subamendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
We will resume.
We were at subamendment CPC.... Copies have been distributed to everyone. Am I correct?
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I think you'll find that the committee agrees unanimously to adopt the subamendment.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Is it the unanimous consent of all members that it be....
Yes, Mr. Genuis.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I'm sorry; there's agreement that the subamendment be adopted on division.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Mr. Genuis, the legislative clerk is wondering if you could read it into the record, please.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Okay, I will read the whole thing into the record again. Thank you.
Here are the changes that it makes.
First, in (a) of the NDP amendment, which currently reads, “an outline of the measures that the Minister has taken to advance human rights internationally as part of Canada's foreign policy;” the word “Minister” would be replaced with “government”, so it would now read:
(a) an outline of the measures that the government has taken to advance human rights internationally as part of Canada's foreign policy;
It would add the following after subparagraph 10(4)(b)(i):
(i.1) the names of the prisoners of conscience,
It would add the following after subsection (4):
(4.1) In preparing the list referred to in paragraph (4)(b), the Minister must make all reasonable efforts to consult with family members or representatives of the prisoners of conscience and may decide not to include certain information in the list if a person consulted by the Minister requests that the information not be included or the Minister is satisfied that not including it would be in the best interests of the advancement of human rights or the personal safety of the prisoner.
Then it would replace the words “In subsection (4),” in subsection (5) with the following:
In this section,
To those who are referring to the distributed version of the subamendment, reference number 12363478, the subamendment that I moved does not make any deletions from that subamendment. It only adds to it. It takes the words of the existing draft subamendment that was distributed and adds “or the personal safety of the prisoner”, and then it also replaces the word “Minister” with “government” in paragraph (a).
No text has been removed from that draft reference number. In those two cases only, text been added; it is otherwise the same as that draft reference number.
Is that clear to the legislative clerk and to all the members?
12:20 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Indeed it is clear, except for the first part, replacing “Minister” with “government”. In French, the reference to the minister appears in the chapeau, which is above the amendment. It's in the bill, so it would need an amendment to the bill in itself, on line 12, page 1, to replace “le ministre publie” by “le gouvernement publie”. Is that what you—
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
No. I hadn't looked at the French version before, but I think it is appropriate right now. It's interesting, because it's different from the English version. The French version says, “un résumé des mesures qu'il a prises pour”. That refers to the minister before any changes are made. In this part, we should say, “un résumé des mesures que le gouvernement a prises”.
The minister has an obligation to submit the report, but the report must include actions that are taken by other ministers.
Does that work? Yes? Okay.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
We got the sign-off from the legislative clerk.
Yes, Mr. Anandasangaree.
April 27th, 2023 / 12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
Thank you, Mr. Genuis.
I want to go back to our officials to get some clarity.
First, in terms of the merits and risks of publishing, I'd like to hear any kind of list of prisoners of conscience. I think that's an important consideration.
Second, when it becomes clear that the list will remain.... For example, why is government discretion on releasing information related to Canada's work on the release of detained human rights defenders or prisoners of conscience important? What are the consequences of not having this discretion?
Third, what is the consequence of a legislated requirement to disclose the full names and circumstances of Canada's work on the release of particular individuals?
12:20 p.m.
Jennifer Keeling Acting Executive Director, Human Rights and Indigenous Affairs, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
I'll speak briefly about how we see the risks of publishing a list in any sort of human rights report. Witnesses before me have outlined significant concerns that the government sees in publishing any sort of list of names, or even the circumstances of potential conditions of detention and the circumstances of that detention. I'll briefly outline some of those again.
The first, of course, is that the government has the responsibility and the obligation to do no harm. In supporting human rights defenders, what we would call in this case “prisoners of conscience” or any other person whose case we are engaging on or particular pieces we are doing advocacy for, Canada's approach is to do no harm and to make sure there is informed consent. The safety and privacy of these folks is paramount.
If the government is required to publish a list that sets out the names and circumstances of human rights defenders detained worldwide or other people who might be detained in contravention of their human rights standards, it is not guaranteed in any way that these values will be respected. In addition to that, when we think about the personal safety of those who are detained, it's not just the personal safety of the potential prisoner who is detained; we have to also think about doing no harm to their family, their community and others who are working on these same issues, as well as potential consular issues and any Canadians who may be travelling in that area.
We also want to think through the risk that a publicized list that sets out the names and circumstances of human rights defenders potentially endangers their safety and, in the most serious cases, their lives, so we would be very cautious about proceeding with any sort of publicized list.
I think your second question was about the importance of the discretion—that the government have a level of discretion or some sort of assessment of that personal safety. Again, here I would say that there are legitimate reasons not to include certain cases on a list. Even if names are not included, there may be certain identifiable circumstances whereby that person could be identified while detained, and that person therefore may be in a position of facing reprisal by their detaining authority or by the detaining institution. There are also potentially reprisals for their families, their communities, their loved ones and Canadian consular cases, as I mentioned.
It undermines our ability to make sure we are doing no harm and pulling in informed consent from all of those folks. Government discretion and an assessment of the personal safety of all involved in these cases would be vital for us to have in this amendment.
I think I've answered all of them, so I'll leave it there. If there's anything else to be clarified, I'm happy to do so.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Thank you for that comprehensive response, Ms. Keeling. I'm very grateful.
Now I understand the legislative clerk has a concern and believes there's an oversight in the subamendment.
12:25 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To come back to the subamendment, in English, when we say replace “Minister” with “government”, I want to make clear it's the Government of Canada. Is that right? Okay.
In French, the amendment reads:
“un résumé des mesures qu'il a prises”.
It should be replaced by
“que le gouvernement du Canada a prises”.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I would never presume to correct a francophone on their French, so....
12:25 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Chair, I just have a comment.
Sometimes what's happened in the discussion of this section is that we've gone back to underlining discussion points that have already been agreed on by all of the committee. There is broad agreement that the original text of the bill required amendment because there needed to be legitimate redaction powers. The redaction powers proposed in the subamendment are extremely broad. They apply to all parts of proposed paragraph 10(4)(b), not just the names, but also the circumstances, the countries, the detaining authorities and so forth. The government can choose to redact any of that information based on its own assessment of what is in the best interests of human rights.
The requirement is for the government to prepare this information and to publish information where they think the publication of such information is not contrary to the best interests of human rights. I hope members understand how deep and broad that opportunity is. One can't, I presume, argue against the subamendment or the amendment on the basis that some of the information published might cause other problems because the government has broad latitude to redact that information in any case where it thinks there's a problem—not just the names, but also circumstances, information about the detaining authorities, and so forth. The government has to publish a report, and it has to make an assessment about whether information should be published or not. It can redact the information it thinks shouldn't be public.
Again, I think this is a very reasonable compromise. It's more than a compromise; I think it's the right thing to do. We don't want to see information published that shouldn't be published either. However, we think that having this report, having the obligation to prepare that list and make these determinations, is in the public interest.
Thanks.