Foreign Affairs Committee on June 15th, 2023

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Braw, you pointed out before the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade that the application of Magnitsky's Law has been heavily focused on Russia and, in some cases, China, while there have been almost no cases of sanctions being imposed under this law on representatives of Southeast Asian states, for example.

You've argued in favour of applying Magnitsky's Law to all countries where state officials violate the rights of their own citizens. To date, have political, geopolitical or commercial considerations influenced Canada's application of this type of sanctions? Do you have any examples or explanations to give us on this subject?

[Elisabeth Braw]

Yes, I remember that evidence session. I'm delighted you brought up the Magnitsky sanctions.

Again, if we look at where the Magnitsky sanctions have been applied to date, as we discussed in that previous evidence session, it's essentially mostly countries that are foes of the west. That's fine. It's within western countries' prerogatives to impose Magnitsky sanctions as they like.

My concern is that if the sanctions—the Magnitsky sanctions in particular—are seen as being imposed disproportionately on countries that are the west's enemies, then these sanctions, which are really very important, will become tainted and, as a result, lose some of their power. They will be seen as a tool of western power, rather than as a tool in favour of democracy and the rule of law in any country where democracy, human rights and the rule of law are violated. I think that's where we are today.

It is, I realize—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Ms. Braw, I'm so sorry. I'm afraid we're out of time.

We have to go to the next member.

Ms. McPherson, you have a minute and a half.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Braw, we keep cutting you off, so I feel like we need to let you finish some of your answers.

If you could also add to that, one of the things you said the last time I was asking you questions was that the unpredictable nature of sanctions makes them more effective. Of course, as an opposition member, my job is to make sure that I'm holding the government to account, so we want to understand why the government is imposing sanctions.

There has to be both the unpredictability to make them effective, but also some transparency, perhaps after the fact, so that we understand why those decisions are made. How do we balance that?

[Elisabeth Braw]

That's an excellent question because it also speaks to the timing of the sanctions. In order for sanctions to be unpredictable, they have to happen quite quickly so as to take the other side by surprise.

Something I've thought about—I haven't seen it implemented anywhere—is whether there could be a consultative body composed of the government and parliamentary representatives of all factions in a given Parliament. They would form the authoritative body that would have to approve sanctions that could then be imposed swiftly.

I don't think such a body should have the right to veto sanctions, but it should be involved so that sanctions, especially very swift ones, don't come as a surprise to it. This matters, especially when the issue is one of sanctioning people who are not involved in the aggressive action we are trying to deter or punish, such as children of officials. However, if there is a consultative body, an advisory body, involving both the government and Parliament, I feel that would give some scrutiny and legitimacy to such decisions.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

One would think, too, that once someone is on the list—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Ms. McPherson, you're over time. Thank you.

Mr. Epp, you have three minutes.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to continue on this point.

Earlier, you stressed the importance of the rule of law in the application of sanctions, particularly as it relates to the freezing or seizing of assets. With regard to your comments on extending sanctions to the children of others being sanctioned for direct offences, is there any risk that the rule of law will be interpreted as beyond the scope of the rule of law?

[Elisabeth Braw]

That's an excellent point, and that's why I think sanctions against the children of officials, specifically children who are not involved in the aggressive actions themselves, should be limited to visa bans and travel bans. We should remember that visas aren't just anybody's right. I know from experience.... I think every member of this committee has applied for a visa at some point in their life and has had to anxiously wait to find out whether they would be granted the visa to whatever country. It's nobody's right to get a visa to any country, which makes it, I think, a perfect tool for countries seeking to sanction other countries: to withdraw visas at their pleasure, because they're under no obligation to issue visas.

A good example of that is what Switzerland did in 2009 when Hannibal Gaddafi, one of the sons of Colonel Gaddafi, beat up a number of hotel employees at a Swiss luxury hotel. Switzerland arrested Hannibal Gaddafi, whereupon Colonel Gaddafi swiftly seized two Swiss businessmen who happened to be in Libya, so he engaged in hostage diplomacy. How do you respond to that as Switzerland? Switzerland, in one go, suspended all Libyan visas to Switzerland, and that had an incredible effect. Not long after that, the two businessmen were released. I think that is a good case study of what can be done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Ms. Braw, we have some technical difficulties.

I apologize. I think we're going to have to wrap up this first round.

I apologize to Mr. Zuberi and also to Mr. Epp for having lost a minute.

Ms. Braw and Mr. Astapenka, thank you very much for your time, your insights and your expertise. Your testimony has proven very valuable, and we're very grateful for it. In particular, Mr. Astapenka, please rest assured that our government and Canadians in general are very grateful for your efforts, and you can always count on our goodwill.

Thank you.

We'll now suspend for approximately five minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Welcome back, everyone.

We will now resume and commence our second hour.

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

Chair, I just want to raise a point of order before you start off.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Yes, Mr. Genuis.

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

Chair, I missed the tail end of the last meeting. I note that the committee minutes list a press conference on one of the studies taking place on Monday at 4 p.m. For what it's worth, I don't know that it makes a lot of sense to table a report this week and to do a press conference next week. If it's in the minutes, it's in the minutes, but I would just say that if there is to be a press conference, it has to stick to the parameters of the agreement. To deviate from that would be to do something that has not been agreed to.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Just to let you know, Mr. Genuis, you're absolutely right on that. We had agreed on Monday. Tuesday worked better for the members, but since you are insisting on the Monday, we will have it at 4 p.m. on Monday.

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

Yes. Further to that point, I don't know if other members have thoughts on this—again, I wasn't here—but I don't understand the logic of tabling a report this week and doing a press conference next week.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

It's been agreed to already.

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

I suspect everybody will have said their piece by then anyway.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Yes, Mr. Hoback.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Chair, we were going through that relatively quickly at the very end of the meeting on Monday. What I heard was “press release”, which is a common practice of the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

No, that was one segment, and then there was a press conference as well.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I didn't understand it was a press conference. I assumed it was just a press release, which is common for a committee. I guess that's why I voted the way I did. I didn't think it would be a problem because I thought it was just a press release. Now finding out that it's a press conference does create some issues with regard to the House and the sitting of the House. Everything is so fluid right now. How do you do stuff like this, especially next week, in light of how busy next week is going to be?

I'm not sure what the wisdom is in actually going ahead with this press conference. Maybe we would be better off just doing a press release. You're going to introduce it today, I believe, and do a press release today or tomorrow.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

That is not my sense.

Ms. McPherson, did you want to say anything about this?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I haven't put my hand up, but I'm quite comfortable having a press conference. I think it's important we have that opportunity. Frankly, we can't really stop doing the work we have to do as parliamentarians because of the mayhem that sometimes ensues in the House. I think we have to be aware and work around it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Yes, Mr. Oliphant.