Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on June 18th, 2019

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

I'll conclude with you, Anna. What types of support systems are needed by religious groups that are being persecuted?

[Anna Lee Stangl]

A voice, I think, is the main one, being able to report what's happening as it's happening and to get at least moral support.

In that sense, I think, going back to the diplomacy question, Canadian embassies can play a strong role if they are in touch with religious groups on the ground in the countries, not just with the main leaders but with minority groups and local churches in different regions. It gives the churches, as individuals, a lifeline, a way of communicating what's happening to them. The embassy may not be able to do much practically, but just being there and having that open communication is a huge thing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anita Vandenbeld]

We'll now go to Ms. Hardcastle for four minutes.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to go back to where there are some clear opportunities for Canada. If we are looking at the issue of targeted sanctions, are there areas or places where, in your studies of the situation, they probably would have the most ripple effect? Sometimes these individual actors are part of something larger. Strategically, what places would you see where this is better suited, where there are certain state actors that are enticing or where there is impunity with some non-state actors? How do you think that fits in?

[Mindy Michels]

You're looking at me, so I'm wondering if you're directing that to me.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Yes, I'll go to you, just because you're the.... It's hard to tell when you're looking at people on a monitor. It's very satisfying when you have actual interaction with people. That's why. It's not that I'm trying to put more pressure on you.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Mindy Michels]

That's fine.

If you're looking at specific people or recommendations for specific countries, I don't have those with me right now but we could definitely provide you that information.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Okay.

[Mindy Michels]

The use of the Magnitsky act is something that Freedom House has been very involved with, both in the U.S. and in co-operating with other governments.

I would be very happy to provide more information on that.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Ms. Kuo, on the issue of targeted sanctions, looking at the areas that you've studied and at state actors and non-state actors, where do you think we need to go? Is there an area in China or a specific person who you think would be a start?

[Lily Kuo]

There are officials who are in charge of religious affairs and there are officials who are in charge of policies in certain areas like Xinjiang, so there are people you could target if you wanted to, but that would not be—

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

It's someone who would be strategic and would have a ripple effect, not just for the sake of getting them out of circulation. That's what I am getting at. Impunity is one issue, but if you're looking at strategy as to how we can help turn certain things around, sometimes there are people who are more involved or influential. That's the point I was trying to make.

Ms. Stangl, do you want to add to that?

[Anna Lee Stangl]

[Technical difficulty—Editor] a country; however, I do think there are many countries where it would make an impact, not just in terms of the individual who is targeted but the other individuals who may work with them and see what's happening. It may serve as a warning to them that this is what could happen to them if they continue to engage in this type of abuse.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Yes.

We will wrap up with you, Mr. Brobbel, if you would like to add something.

[Floyd Brobbel]

I would only caution, as a practitioner, that sometimes sanctions actually hurt the Christians we're trying to help in terms of getting funding in there or getting actual work done, so we've had to navigate through some of those challenges. I'd just throw that out there for awareness.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I'll differentiate now, because I agree with that statement. We're talking about targeted sanctions on individuals, not necessarily....

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anita Vandenbeld]

Thank you very much.

I want to thank all four of our witnesses for some very evocative and very informed testimony today.

We now have committee business, so I am going to suspend for just a moment while we release our witnesses and go to committee business, so we'll have just a 30-second suspension.

I would ask the members to please take their seats. We're resuming now.

As we are in public, the witnesses and others in the audience who wish to stay are welcome to stay.

Now we are in committee business, so we are open to any topic.

Go ahead, Ms. Hardcastle.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for this opportunity at the last of our meetings and the mandate of this subcommittee of the foreign affairs committee in the 42nd Parliament.

It's been an honour to serve with everyone on this committee. Each of us has our own way of coming at the passion and the desire of this committee, and it's really touched me and helped me to grow as a social justice activist and somebody who wants to see Canada's place in the global meaning of human rights and the well-being of all of the planet's citizens. I think this committee's doing tremendous work on that.

It is also for that reason that I think it's important to go on record to say here today that we had a turning point, I believe, on this committee. When I first came here, there was great pride in the operation of this consensus model. I would like to differentiate, because there are people who follow this committee who do take a scholarly approach, and I think it's important in our public sphere to differentiate what is actually happening now. It's not a consensus model. We're operating on unanimous consent, and there is a big difference in that.

It started with the Uighur study, and then some of the tremendous latitude, as other members of the committee who have more history here have discussed, didn't happen towards the end. That is a concern to me, because I feel that this committee has a role and a responsibility that's higher than each of us. Even though we think we're magnanimous and our views are broad, we're always challenging ourselves to be broader. I think we do a disservice if we continue to call this consensus. I certainly hope that those who are returning for the next Parliament will take up that mantle and really truly consider what consensus versus unanimous consent means. The dissenting voices are not always evil and bad, or just people who don't want to get along. It's challenging us, which is why the consensus model was held up with such pride at one time.

The other thing I want to add is that we do have a little bit of unfinished business. I wonder if the rest of the committee has also thought about the recommendation from Dafina Savic to do a unanimous motion and a recommendation for the government with regard to having August 2 as an official day of commemoration for the Romani genocide.

I don't know if anyone else here had planned to do this, so if I may, Madam Chair, I will just read this motion, as per the request of our witness at the last meeting, to the committee. It is that the committee issue a recommendation for the government to adopt a unanimous motion declaring August 2 as the official day of commemoration of the Romani genocide and commit to combatting anti-Roma racism, discrimination and violence.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anita Vandenbeld]

Thank you.

I have Mr. Anderson on the list.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I understand that Ms. Hardcastle's making a motion, but we haven't heard this before so I think we will defer on it for now.

I wanted to have the floor just to thank people. Since 2010, I've been focused on some of the freedom issues around speech and belief and religious freedom. Starting in 2012-13, I was on the foreign affairs committee for a couple of years, and then since 2015 I've been able to be here to work on the projects we've worked on. I'm not coming back, so this is my last chance, I guess, to do that.

I want to thank the staff who have served us so well. There are our clerks and our analysts. We've gotten to be friends over the years and have done some travelling together. There are also the folks who work in the translation booth and the people who have had to put up with our coming in here at the end of one meeting and have then been expected to set up instantaneously for us. They've done so well on that. I want to just thank those people who have set up for their service.

I also want to thank my colleagues. We've had a good run here, and it's good that we can have the kind of discussion that Ms. Hardcastle is speaking about. I want to recognize that.

I also want to say that I was disappointed that this was not on TV. I know yesterday we made the decision given that there were challenges to it, but as I approached the whip's staff—not only ours but also those of some of the other parties—and tech staff, I was getting contradictory messages from a number of them. I think on issues like this one that are this important, and even for two hours on a subject, we should be trying to televise those. I'm not going to get into any more detail than that, so I will just leave it at that.

I want to thank you for your time and for the work that we have put together. I think we have made a difference. Even today, I think this is probably some of the most important work that's been done on the Hill today. We need to recognize that for what it is.

Thank you.

[A voice]

Hear, hear!

[The Chair, Liberal, Anita Vandenbeld]

Thank you.

I have Ms. Khalid.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I too want to recognize the wonderful work we've done in this subcommittee over the past number of years, working with all parties and really making an impact. I think one of the most empowering moments was having human rights defenders come here and really recognizing and awarding.... I appreciate Mr. Sweet for really pushing that and for making that happen, as well as the rest of the committee. I really appreciate that. I think the work we've done here, in whatever small way, has made an impact and will continue to make an impact. I think what happened today and the testimony we heard today was strong and powerful. Obviously the two hours that we had on this is not enough. I think in the next mandate, those of us who return should be picking this up as a fulsome study to ensure that we continue this conversation.

Mr. Anderson, you will be very deeply missed in this subcommittee. You've played a very important role in religious freedoms. I appreciate all of the work you have done. I know that for you this is not the end of this work and that you will keep on doing it.

As for our consensus model versus unanimous consent, I was disappointed not to have unanimous consent on the Uighur study, for example, because I felt that our inability to really get across a strong report was to the detriment of Uighurs. That's why I think issues like the ones we've discussed over the past number of years are non-partisan. They are not political. They're something we must all come together on as human beings to really understand objectively the suffering that occurs around the world. I've seen in each and every one of us a lot of empathy and a lot of compassion, and I hope that continues.

I take the point Ms. Hardcastle has made over the past number of years that we must have a stand-alone committee on international human rights, and that is something I look forward to pushing if I return in the next mandate.

Thank you to all of you for making this an amazing four years.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anita Vandenbeld]

I have Mr. Tabbara.