Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on Nov. 26th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Thank you, Ms. Aljizawi.

I'm sorry. The time has run out. We have to be fair with everyone.

I'd like to invite Ms. Vandenbeld to take the floor for four minutes, please.

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

Thank you very much

Thank you to both of you for the important work that you're doing.

I'd like to start with you, Noura.

Just at the end of the last round, you started to say something about artificial intelligence and how it's being used in spyware. I wonder if you could elaborate on that.

[Noura Aljizawi]

In my research, I have not documented any use of AI in spyware, but I know that there are so many researchers out there who are capable of conducting more sophisticated research than I, including colleagues at the Citizen Lab who are looking at this. The risk is looming out there.

We need better regulations. I think it's my opportunity to call one more time for stronger responses from Canada to the mercenary spyware that's being used in human rights violations.

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

Thank you very much. I think that's a very good warning.

I'd like to go to Sarah.

You mentioned countries sharing information with one another, and you gave an example about Nordic countries. Is there a better way...?

This is obviously something that is happening everywhere. When we're talking about developing countries and countries that might be more vulnerable or not have either the leverage or the capacity, is there a way that we can share this kind of knowledge, information and practices internationally, so that we can learn from one another?

[Sarah Teich]

That was actually a point made by Noura, so maybe I'll let her answer.

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

Would you like to answer that question?

[Noura Aljizawi]

Yes, absolutely.

There are so many means, but we can leverage what's going on now across G7 to start. There are potentials, I believe, out there, but we really need to improve them.

The second thing, which is very important, is that we need to give it the broader umbrella of addressing this phenomenon as a human rights violation and not slip into the area of looking at it as only a security threat to the nation, because we don't want these issues also to be securitized.

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

Thank you very much.

Now I will go to Sarah.

On renditions to third countries, there are some countries that either don't have the same kind of leverage or they don't have the capacity.

Is there a way that there could be capacity building or ways that we could reinforce some of those countries' abilities to withstand the pressure and not rendition people and not co-operate with countries that are trying to cause repression?

[Sarah Teich]

It's a great question.

Again, there's a lot that Canada can do here practically. I'll give an example that happened recently with the Turkish dissidents—or members of a minority group from Turkey—who were at threat of deportation from Kenya. Some of them actually were, I believe, deported from Kenya to Turkey. In that case, there were efforts going on in the background to look at whether they could be resettled to other countries.

This is something that Canada can consider in similar cases. If there are dissidents or human rights defenders in particular who are at risk of illegal rendition, and it's a case where we know about it in advance, Canada has its urgent protection program. Canada has mechanisms to bring them to safety into Canada. Other like-minded countries may have similar programs, so that's something very practical that Canada can do in the immediate term.

Then certainly when it comes to capacity building, partnering with those organizations or perhaps training enforcement to understand the rule of law—

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Thank you, Ms. Teich.

Mr. Brunelle‑Duceppe, you have the floor for four minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is a really inspiring and very interesting conversation. Unfortunately, we don't have a lot of time.

We've talked a lot about laws that countries enforce domestically to address the issue of international repression. However, as we speak, international law must still apply to certain crimes committed. That aspect hasn't been sufficiently addressed.

For example, what specific aspects of international law are violated when a state attacks a dissident on foreign territory? When that happens, is international law violated, Ms. Teich?

[Sarah Teich]

That's a great question.

There are several international laws that are at play to prohibit most of this behaviour. Aside from this being a breach of sovereignty of the other country the autocrat is reaching into, there are also, depending on the specifics of what happened, international laws against enforced disappearance, against hostage taking and against physical assault in many countries' criminal codes. That's domestic law in addition to international law. It's prohibited to engage in the targeting of civilians. That may be at play in some instances. It would be a very fact-based scenario, but we do have a multitude of laws.

I think the question becomes how those laws are enforced and what's actually done. To give a particular example, in the international framework, we have treaty bodies and mechanisms. Treaty bodies, for example, will monitor states parties' compliance with international treaties. Take enforced disappearance, for example. There's a committee that will monitor states parties' compliance with those provisions. Countries can make reservations, or they can fail to opt in to whatever protocol, depending on how the treaty is structured. It changes a little, but countries can basically not give the committee the right to hear individual communications. When it comes to treaties that have a recourse with the ICJ, states can reserve out of that.

There's a lot of that going on, where dictatorships in particular take advantage of those opt-out procedures and those reservations to make it very difficult to respond to, even when situations are in violation of the law.

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

So you're telling us that the tools we currently have access to under international law are ineffective at countering transnational repression. You're telling us that we absolutely have to look at the opposition to transnational repression from the angle you gave us, that is to say a group of countries that agree on national laws that are consistent with each other, a kind of umbrella of national laws that fit together.

Is my understanding of what you're telling us today correct?

[Sarah Teich]

Depending on the specific fact scenario, it's possible. It's theoretical that perhaps the tools we have are enough. If in the particular case where a country hasn't opted out, there are mechanisms to leverage, but as a general premise, yes, I would agree with that.

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

Could we have Ms. Aljizawi's opinion?

I didn't address you very much, Ms. Aljizawi, and I apologize for that. I gave the floor more to Ms. Teich because I know her well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Quickly answer, please. You have 10 seconds.

[Noura Aljizawi]

Absolutely. It's her area of expertise. She's a lawyer. I'm not, so I really respect that.

I agree with Sarah. I always refer, as a human rights defender, to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The right of an individual to security is granted in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and we can, all the time, refer to that. Also, there is the great umbrella of state sovereignty—other states are not allowed to intervene.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Thank you, Ms. Aljizawi.

I invite Mr. Johns to take the floor for four minutes, please.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Thank you.

I want to thank you both for your testimony. It's been really invaluable.

I'm going to follow up again on what Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe said.

I go back to you, Ms. Teich, because he talked about tools internationally. I want to ask you whether you believe that law enforcement here in Canada actually has the tools to respond to transnational repression. We heard from one of the witnesses earlier today who suggested that a hotline could be set up to report instances of transnational repression.

Do you think that could be helpful? Do you have any other suggestions on how enforcement here in Canada can respond to this growing threat?

[Sarah Teich]

I have so many suggestions.

I mean, when it comes to a hotline in particular—let's start there—there is an RCMP contact number for instances like this, and there's a CSIS contact number. The problem is that, when folks call in, more often than not they're shuttled around. We've heard this time and again from victims of transnational repression. They don't know who to call, and when they find someone to call, they get shuttled to the next line.

Beyond that, most lines that exist right now don't have sufficient language capabilities. None of the lines that exist have sufficient language capabilities. A lot of the complaint mechanisms lack confidentiality protections, which does not build trust to call in among communities that have been targeted. As well, again, the law enforcement, in a lot of cases, doesn't have the appropriate training.

This is not something that I've talked about so far in this committee, but I was also subject to a hacking in 2021, and I was also shuttled around different law enforcement agencies. I finally landed with the Toronto Police Service, and the person on the phone assumed that I was mentally ill. That's what it sounded like to me. Obviously, I'll never know for sure, but the way this person was speaking to me was very condescending, and it was very obvious, to me anyway, that they didn't believe what was going on and thought that I must be unwell to think that a state was hacking me.

In talking to my clients, this is a very common story. A hotline is all well and good, but if the folks operating the hotline aren't trained to deal with these types of instances, don't speak the languages of the folks calling in and aren't in power to give confidentiality, witness protection or anonymity, then what use is it?

I think you need to have a longer conversation about all of those initiatives and make sure they're really fit for purpose.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

That's an excellent response. I'm sorry to hear what happened to you there.

Ms. Aljizawi, can you speak about how our immigration system can be subject to foreign interference?

[Noura Aljizawi]

Yes.

Please allow me to add something on top of everything Sarah said about law enforcement and the tip line. It's very important to recognize that many people who are subjected to state violence back home feel traumatized about speaking to law enforcement here. This is the fact that I believe should be recognized by any further planning.

For sure, the immigration system might be exploited by the authoritarian states, starting with how the screening would start with certain individuals, which is common. When it comes to the screening processes, there's no framework to guide the officers conducting the screening to seek truth and to not fall victim to the state-sponsored misinformation and disinformation. We've documented cases that states are really seeding disinformation everywhere, including in Wikipedia and—

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

You have 15 seconds.

[Noura Aljizawi]

Okay. Thank you.

How to seek truth and not fall victim to disinformation is very important. I can provide more details in my written testimony that's coming.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Thank you.

For both of our witnesses, on behalf of all committee members and all of the staff here, we would like to thank you for your presence. Your declaration and your testimony were very useful to the committee. If you feel that other information may be useful, please do not hesitate to write to the clerk or to me.

Thanks again for your presence.

We would like to suspend for a couple of seconds and move in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]