Foreign Affairs Committee on May 7th, 2026

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

What about publication and the unintended consequences? It could put those individuals in more danger if it's publicized.

[Kati Csaba]

Indeed. Naming them and exposing the fact that we consider them to be human rights defenders makes them, in a sense, a potentially more valuable target for the regime of the country that is holding them. It may end up treating them even more badly because it knows we are seeking to protect them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Thank you very much.

We'll go next to Monsieur Brunelle-Duceppe. You have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for joining us to study this bill, which is supported by the Bloc Québécois. I would now like to address all the witnesses.

Perhaps we could hear some explanations. In particular, we have concerns regarding the implementation of the bill as currently drafted, and I believe people are open to us working a little more to improve it.

The bill provides for the production of an annual report that includes information on political prisoners and on the government's communications with families and civil society.

From an administrative or operational standpoint, how do your departments plan to collect, validate and disseminate this information, particularly in terms of interacting with families? That is the most important aspect for us.

[Angelica Liao-Moroz]

Thank you for the question.

First, the government encourages the publication of transparent and relevant reports on Canada's efforts to advance human rights internationally.

Such an annual report, we really feel, should be an opportunity to focus on our overall strategic priorities when it comes to human rights, our actions and the outcomes.

You asked what level of effort this would take. The way the draft bill is currently worded requires us to provide not just a listing of individual defenders who are detained abroad but also details regarding their circumstances—you've obviously read the bill—and how often we've intervened with the local government, etc. There would be a vast amount of resources and efforts deployed for constantly monitoring these cases, verifying this information and, purely from an information management perspective, ensuring the integrity, privacy and security of this information.

The reason we would like to reframe it as a report on Canada's broader human rights priorities is that it's a way to show the full spectrum of work we're doing, whether it's specific geographic areas of concern; whether we're talking about human rights defenders, transnational repression or other trends; whether we are doing this through country-to-country engagement; whether it's through our work at the United Nations; whether it's through funding programming for civil society and human rights defenders; whether it's through imposing consequences such as sanctions for countries that have very concerning human rights records; or whether it's through our engagement of civil society.

Our assessment is that, for the reasons already explained—principally relating to the safety and privacy of the individual—perhaps one way to do so would be to highlight what we call “emblematic cases” of particular individuals abroad that signify a broader trend on a particular issue of concern, as opposed to going into details and case by case.

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

I understand. However, your answer is much broader than what I was looking for. I would ask you to be more specific about interactions with families. That is what interests me most at the moment, because this bill would allow the disclosure of information while giving the minister the option to exclude certain details at the families' request. I have some concerns on this point.

Wouldn't it be preferable for the bill to require obtaining the consent of political prisoners' families before publishing their names or other information in the annual report?

I'd like to know what it would entail if we added this requirement for prior consent from families. Would it complicate your work or would it make it easier?

Wouldn't it be preferable to proceed in this manner—that is, the opposite of what is currently provided for in the bill—to obtain prior consent from the families before disclosing any information whatsoever, rather than leaving that decision in the hands of the minister, for example?

[Robert Brookfield]

I think my colleague can tell you more, but the problem is that, even before this change takes place, we anticipate that we won't be able to disclose many names. We don't know if we'll be able to find the information or if we'll be able to speak to anyone in the family. It's not clear. Will it be the sister, the brother, the father? There won't be a decision regarding the disclosure of the information since it will be difficult to find and there will always be the fear that someone might object, whether it's someone here or the prisoner themselves.

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

Yes, but there are still many families who would approve such a thing. In fact, several of my colleagues who work precisely with families of political prisoners are asking us to do so.

That said, there are also families asking us to work mainly behind the scenes and not to make things public. Sometimes, we start by trying everything that can be done privately. Then, if that doesn't work, we decide to make it public by shining a spotlight on a specific case.

There are many cases I could mention. Raif Badawi's is one. Jimmy Lai's is another. Many families initially try to work through private channels. That was the case for a long time with the two Michaels, before we finally made the information public.

My question is fairly simple. I don't think it should necessarily be left up to the minister—I think prior consent should be obtained. I understand your concerns about how to proceed and whose decision it is within a family, but there must be a way to establish parameters that lead us to a fairly obvious decision at a certain point, for cases that aren't that complicated, so to speak.

Does that make sense?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

We need a very brief response because we're running out of time.

[Angelica Liao-Moroz]

Thank you for the question.

You are correct in saying that it is always preferable to obtain the consent of the individual or the family. However, I will say that there are other principles we must follow.

The other principles relate to.... We have to assess the disclosing of the name and circumstances of an individual regardless of their consent and whether that will put their safety at risk, for any number of reasons, along with others that I can elaborate on subsequently.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Thank you.

MP Bezan, we're starting the next round with five minutes from you.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to come back to this. Would you guys be opposed to having both a definition of “human rights defenders” and a definition of “prisoners of conscience”? That or different...?

[Angelica Liao-Moroz]

Not necessarily. Off the cuff, as long as we have the broader definition of human rights defenders, as I said, so that we can be as inclusive as possible, we could recognize that—

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Tell me this on human rights defenders, because I'm looking at the GAC line on this about who they are. It's saying that a human rights defender is:

...someone who, individually or with others, acts to promote and protect human rights.

Human rights defenders document and call attention to violations and abuses by any actor, including:

governments

businesses

non-state actors...

That's what you're defining it as, but what do you do with people who get arrested, detained and, often, sterilized, such as the Uyghurs, the Falun Dafa and the Tibetan monks?

They're all being ostracized, prosecuted and executed based upon religion. It's not that they're out there fighting for freedom. They don't fall under our definition of “human rights defenders”.

[Angelica Liao-Moroz]

No, and I would say that just because they don't fall under a definition of the human rights...as a human rights defender doesn't necessarily mean that we're not advocating in other ways.

If I may first answer your initial question, I don't think we would be opposed to including the subcategory of “prisoners of conscience”. It's not out of disliking the term. It's very much, as I said, to go much wider in scope.

The example you just described, in which an individual is peacefully standing up for rights regardless of, in this case, the right to the freedom of religion or belief, we would consider that to be a human rights defender.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Yes, but they're getting arrested based upon their belief. They're just practising their faith.

You can also take people like Vladimir Kara-Murza, who was standing up for democracy. Right now, under “human rights defender”, maybe that falls in, but I think “prisoners of conscience” fits better. I think that maybe we should look at my colleagues across the way when we start working on amendments and possibly do a combination and make sure both terms are used, so that we are inclusive and specific enough that nobody slips through the cracks.

Would you be okay with that?

[Angelica Liao-Moroz]

Yes, and the one thing I would add is that in this case, somebody who is exercising their freedom of religion or belief...this is not to say that we don't advocate for these types of rights. We very much do.

For example, Canada has long led the International Contact Group on Freedom of Religion or Belief in working with 20-plus states, the UN and elsewhere to really make sure that these issues are front and centre when we're talking about human rights.

There are many ways in which we do this. I understand your particular point that if somebody is detained, they're not left behind.... I think we would be open to reflecting on this to make sure that we are as inclusive as possible.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

In talking about the privacy concerns around the reporting—and I understand that some families may not want to—in my conversations with Michael Kovrig.... I know that we have Brandon Silver up next, and he'll probably talk about Irwin Cotler's comments on shining the spotlight. Mr. Kovrig and Vladimir Kara-Murza have told me that if their situations hadn't been brought to the forefront and they had been forgotten about behind bars, they most likely would have been executed.

How do we balance this? We know that sunshine is the best disinfectant. How can we shine sunlight on governments that are really trying to repress individuals whom they have captured and imprisoned based upon political beliefs or religious beliefs? Jimmy Lai is another one, as my colleague Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe talked about. How do we make sure that, for those individuals, we shine the spotlight? Otherwise, it could get worse. Who knows?

[Angelica Liao-Moroz]

It's a very fair point. If I may, I'll elaborate on what I said previously.

You're absolutely right that there are cases in which shining a spotlight will help. In many of these situations, we also like to work with partners. There's strength in numbers. It brings more visibility to a case. I can think of one example. You talked about Jimmy Lai. At the Human Rights Council not too long ago, we stood up alongside New Zealand, Australia and other partners and brought to light the most recent details concerning this case.

I think what we're trying to say is that in using a blanket approach, in which we would have to list in detail the names of the individuals and the circumstances around their detention, there are situations in which we assess that shining a public light on them, regardless of whether they've provided consent, would backfire. It could lead to reprisals by the host state.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Thank you.

We go next to MP Oliphant.

You have five minutes.

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

Before I begin my time, I have a point of order. I didn't want to interrupt the previous person.

I want clarification—and I believe I'm correct on this—that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on discussion on the previous bill around the definitions of “human rights defenders” or “prisoners of conscience” that took place in camera and agreements that might have been reached the last time, because it was an in camera meeting. I cannot bring that up at this meeting. Am I correct on that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

You are correct.

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

Can I bring it up at an in camera meeting at a later date?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Yes, I believe so.

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

Clause-by-clause was in camera.