:
I call the meeting to order.
Welcome to meeting number 58 of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.
Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room, as well as remotely by using the Zoom application.
I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of the members.
Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike and please mute yourselves when you are not speaking.
Interpretation for those on Zoom is at the bottom of your screen, and you have a choice of either floor, English or French. Those in the room can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.
I remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.
Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, November 16, 2022, the committee resumes consideration of Bill , an act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, the Broadcasting Act and the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act.
It is now my pleasure to welcome officials who will be supporting this clause-by-clause consideration of Bill .
From the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, we have Ms. Marie-Josée Langlois, the director general, strategic policy branch; Mr. Jeffrey Marder, the executive director of human rights and indigenous affairs; and Ms. Ashlyn Milligan, the acting executive director for non-proliferation, disarmament and space.
We have, from the Department of Canadian Heritage, Ms. Amy Awad, senior director, marketplace and legislative policy.
I'd like to provide members of the committee with some instructions and a few comments on how the committee will proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill .
As the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there are amendments to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further member wishes to intervene, the amendment will be voted on.
Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill or in the package each member has received from the clerk.
Members should note that amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee.
I will go slowly to allow all members to follow the proceedings properly. Amendments have been given an alphanumeric number in the top right corner to indicate which party submitted them. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once an amendment is moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.
During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended.
When a subamendment is moved to an amendment, it is voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.
Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title and the bill itself, and if amendments are adopted, an order to reprint the bill may be required so that the House has a proper copy for use at report stage.
Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. That report contains only the text of any adopted amendments, as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.
At this point, allow me to thank the officials for their attendance and guidance during this clause-by-clause consideration of Bill .
Each of you has received the package. It's fairly copious. It's about 30 pages. I would recommend everyone follow these.
Going to the agenda, we will go through clause-by-clause study. Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, which is the short title, will be postponed.
(On clause 2)
The Chair: Would anyone like to speak to clause 2?
Go ahead, Mr. Oliphant.
:
I'm going to be proposing an amendment in clause 2. You will see that in the package as G-1, an amendment to clause 2, and I will read it into the record. I move:
That Bill C-281, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 1 to line 2 on page 2 with the following:
(4) At least once in every calendar year, the Minister is to publish a report that outlines the measures that the Minister has taken to advance human rights internationally as part of Canada’s foreign policy.
That is the amendment I am proposing. It is listed as G-1, as I said.
In support of that amendment, I want to reiterate that Canada is committed to supporting wholeheartedly the vital and courageous work of human rights defenders. I want to thank our officials who are with us today, who continually advise us on how we can best support those human rights defenders. However—and we heard this in testimony from more than one witness—if the government is required to publicize a list that sets out the names and circumstances of prisoners of conscience or human rights defenders who are detained anywhere in the world or persons detained in contravention to human rights standards, even while we are supporting them very, very strongly, it's not guaranteed that this will actually help them, and in fact we believe it could hinder their future.
A publicized list that sets out the names and circumstances of such prisoners of conscience or human rights defenders detained worldwide or of persons detained in contravention of human rights standards could actually impede our diplomatic actions and could cause them grave harm. Also, Canada's support for these individuals could potentially endanger their safety, and in more serious cases, could actually lead to their deaths. Moreover, the colloquial term “prisoner of conscience” does not have an agreed international or domestic legal definition, so we're concerned about that. It's even in lower case, as though we understand it; I think we have an intuitive sense of it, but this is a piece of legislation, not a report, Mr. Chair, and that's why we are concerned. We recommend that the listing requirement be removed.
We also heard from Alex Neve, formerly of Amnesty International, that it's not only the listing of people that could cause them harm, but that not listing others whom Canada is not necessarily engaged with but other countries may be engaged with could further their harm as well, because a government could then assume that they're not a prisoner of conscience because they're not on Canada's list, so we want to remove the listing requirement.
We recommend that the listing requirement be removed and replaced with generalized information on activities taken in support of human rights defenders in the annual human rights report. I would say too that I think the helpful part of the bill is requiring that report. We recognize it will take a lot of work and it will take effort, but we think that is important. It could include reference to emblematic cases, cases that perhaps have been resolved satisfactorily or cases that have not been resolved satisfactorily, when there is consent from a number of parties, including the individual themself and their family, and also include a contextual understanding of the nature of the incarceration or the detention. We want to do that so that no harm will be caused.
We recognize that there are families that would like the names of prisoners of conscience or human rights defenders to be listed. We recognize that this is something.... They can list them at any time in their own lives on social media or in broader media, but government has a different responsibility, and the government responsibility here is to ensure all of our activities will not cause harm but will actually help the people who we are trying to help.
We continually do these sorts of cases. I've been involved in a number of them myself when members of the opposition or members of our own caucus have come to us to ask for help with a particular case. It could be a Canadian who's detained. It could be a permanent resident of Canada who's detained. It could be a non-citizen who's detained, someone who has no relationship to Canada but is working as a human rights defender, or a journalist who is also a human rights defender, or anyone else.
The government takes that seriously. We work through our missions and through qualified personnel to do that, but we also recognize that megaphone diplomacy in this way is often counterproductive to what we all want to do, which is to protect their lives and also often to further their cause. Even if we disagree with their cause, we may want to always ensure that their lives are protected.
That's why we're moving G-1. It significantly reduces clause 2—I recognize that—but it will require the minister to publish a report that will show what the minister, whoever the minister is at any time, is doing to advance human rights as part of our foreign policy.
Those are my comments on G-1.
:
I will try to be brief. I simply want to say that I understand many of the points the honourable member is making, but for a variety of reasons, I won't be voting for the amendment.
First, some may view the amendment as an attempt by the government to reduce, rather than strengthen, accountability. In a democracy, that isn't a particularly good thing.
Second, Mr. Neve, for instance, was not opposed to the idea of publishing a list, far from it. Concerns have been raised about publishing a list like this, and we take those concerns seriously. I, myself, raised the issue with Mr. Neve. We are sensitive to those concerns, but an effort to minimize the content of a potential report on the measures taken to advance human rights internationally may be a bit much. I realize the amendment was deemed in order, but I still don't think it is in keeping with the spirit of the bill before us.
For those reasons, I will vote against this amendment.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for the questions.
As indicated, publishing a list.... Whenever Canada engages in support of human rights defenders or people imprisoned abroad in violation of international human rights standards, we do it in partnership with other countries or sometimes with civil society partners. The strategy to approach the engagement on each individual case is decided collectively, based on local situations and the particularities of each individual case.
Typically, we come up with a strategy based on opportunities for escalation. In some cases, indeed, if someone is imprisoned against their will abroad, it would be important to go public with that information. However, typically, we come up with a strategy based on an escalatory approach, potentially with naming an individual case as the final step.
Being forced to publish names in cases we were engaged on could threaten the actual engagement on the specific case. It could also jeopardize partnerships with other countries that are critical to our engaging on cases. If other countries partnering with Canada were aware that we would, by force or legislatively, be obligated to publish the names of individuals on whose behalf we were engaged, it could potentially make them more reluctant to engage with Canada collectively on supporting these cases.
Also, as indicated, we have not been in conversations with the Privacy Commissioner, but we would certainly have to be guided by the Privacy Act, which could place limits on the amount of information allowed to be divulged.
Basically, in terms of an overall strategy, which is guided by partnerships with other countries on the ground, being forced to proactively publish information on individual names could jeopardize those partnerships and our ability to engage effectively on cases.
I would note that quiet diplomacy should not be underestimated as a critical factor in engaging on individual cases. Some countries that typically would not be traditional partners of Canada—I would refer to them as “non-traditional partners”—take approaches that favour quiet diplomacy, as opposed to louder megaphone diplomacy. These sorts of broad partnerships, in many instances, are critical to effective engagement on individual cases. I would cede that those kinds of partnerships could be put particularly at risk by an obligation to publish not just names but also details of activities we were engaged on in individual cases.
:
Clause 2 of Bill amends the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act to add an obligation to publish a report that lists the names and circumstances of prisoners of conscience detained worldwide for whose release the Government of Canada is actively working.
The amendment seeks to expand that list to all prisoners who are detained or experiencing other treatments in contravention of international human rights standards. Also, the amendment provides more accountability to the families of the detained and to civil society. These are new concepts not envisioned in the bill when it was originally adopted by the House at second reading.
As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”
In the opinion of the chair, and for the above-stated reason, the amendment is a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.
Go ahead, Ms. McPherson.
:
The reality is there is some common ground in here somewhere.
I think the government's and the Liberal caucus's position is that we think the bill as written is dangerous. We don't think it's neutral. We think it endangers lives. It's no less than that. That comes from our officials, who are professionals in this field. It comes from members of civil society who have cautioned us. Frankly, it comes very personally from my work in this, which I've been doing now for four years, working and negotiating with other countries—with like-minded and not like-minded countries—to save people's lives. In fact, we did that very recently with two non-Canadian citizens. Well, one was a permanent resident of Canada who was in a difficult, life-threatening situation. If that name had been published, we would not have saved his life. I am 100% sure of that.
We will do everything we can to find a way to enable transparency, but for us, the issue is not Parliament feeling good about what it's doing. That is absolutely offensive to some of us. It is absolutely trying to save people's lives. It's not about us.
I will go on at length about this. I think there is a way we could probably find a solution to this situation. I was very much open to a real amendment to G-1 and to find a way, but substituting NDP-1, which is out of scope, for G-1 is not the way to do it.
If we're now at the point where we've not yet defeated G-1, I think there is a way to appropriately amend G-1. That would be my first goal—
Given that you have moved clause 2, clause 2 of Bill C-281 amends the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, to add an obligation to publish a report outlining measures taken by the minister to advance human rights internationally as part of Canada's foreign policy and lists seeing the names and circumstances of prisoners of conscience detained worldwide for whose release the Government of Canada is actively working.
The amendment seeks to add a new obligation on the minister in the case of a motion adopted by a committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament recommending that an order be considered or made under subsection 6.1(2) of the State Immunity Act in relation to a foreign state, to prepare a response advising the committee as to whether or not the order is to be made and setting out the reasons for the decision to the minister to consider or make an order.
This is a new concept, not envisioned in the bill when it was adopted by the House at second reading. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”
In the opinion of the chair and for the above-stated reason, the amendment is a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore I rule the amendment inadmissible.
Thank you.
Do you want to challenge it?
:
Chair, I suppose the committee will then have to ultimately determine if they want to adopt Mr. Oliphant's amendment or the amendment I proposed, or neither, but I will be moving the amendment I thought I had moved after this one is disposed of, if I am able to.
The original version of the legislation has a mechanism that prevents the government from using prorogation or dissolution to get around responding to this report. Normally, the process in the Standing Orders is that the Standing Orders apply unless a Parliament is dissolved or prorogued.
The original language in the bill says:
If Parliament is prorogued or dissolved before the response is tabled, the Minister must post the response in a prominent location on the website of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development within the time limit referred to in subsection (2) regarding the tabling of the response. The response must be tabled as soon as feasible after the commencement of the next session of Parliament.
It means that if a committee makes a recommendation, the government does have to provide a response. The amended version would also set out a requirement for the government to be substantive in that response and to provide reasons around their decisions.
Effectively, this government amendment guts the existing proposal because it simply says that the government has to comply with the Standing Orders. Well, the government has to comply with the Standing Orders anyway. There's hardly any point in putting this in legislation. It's not about harmonizing anything; it's about removing any substantive effect of this section.
What we would like to see is a meaningful parliamentary trigger that the government can't avoid through prorogation or dissolution that applies regardless, one that gives the committee some flexibility of setting a timeline that's urgent. I know that there was a concern about the 40-day timeline and whether it's appropriate. My amendment proposes to remove the 40-day requirement and leave it entirely up to the committee to set a timeline that's appropriate under the circumstances. It also proposes to address any concerns about giving information in advance of sanctions that might be coming.
The amendment we were going to propose cleans up those issues. Again, what we're seeing with this amendment is fundamentally a gutting of any substance to the provision, and the revised version would say that the government has to follow the Standing Orders.
I would encourage the committee to take a stand for an effective parliamentary trigger to defeat this amendment and then to subsequently deliberate the alternative we would like to propose.
Thank you.
:
To be really clear, in fact there is no intent on our side to circumvent anything to prevent this activity from happening. Our concern is that....
Prorogation is a tool that has been used by successive governments, as dissolution also is the allowance of the people of Canada to speak. That is what happens. The reality is that we attempt during dissolution to not engage in certain activities. We move into a caretaker government mode, and I think that is something all of us need to respect, because it is part of the parliamentary process.
The case I would need to hear is why this is significantly different from every other piece of work done by Parliament. That case has not been made for me. This is important work, but so is every other single piece of work that Parliament does. The case needs to be made for why this is unusual, why it is different from other pieces of legislation that arrive from private members, from public bills, from the Senate or from government legislation, why it is different from every other report that is tabled in a response from the government to committees that are as important as our committee. I think that case needs to be made, because I think there's a supremacy being put on this that is inappropriate and belittles the work of other committees and other groups.
If that case can be made, I'm willing to listen to it, but I don't believe it's been made. That's why I think the standing order should prevail and we should treat this as ordinary parliamentary work that is embedded in our lives and gets done appropriately.
A significant issue we have is with the 40 days. We heard from government officials that this would be problematic for them. I respect our public servants, and that's why I think we need to listen to them, but that's not the only issue here. Part of the issue is that 120 days is our norm.
Generally speaking, we think the Standing Orders should be followed because every committee follows them and every parliamentarian is subject to them, and I just believe government and Parliament work better that way.
:
That was meant to be lighthearted, Mr. Oliphant. Clearly I failed at being lighthearted.
The point is that this legislation is designed to be timeless. It's designed to bind governments of all stripes and ensure that any government of any stripe will have the accountability requirements associated with this parliamentary trigger. I think that's important.
In terms of the 40 days, again I would like to move an amendment that responds to that concern. I will if I'm able.
To the question of what the difference is here between the work of other committees, I would be very open to a broader conversation about beefing up the requirement around government responses. Too often, we get government responses to committee reports in which the government “takes note of this recommendation”. A government response shouldn't be, “Yep, we read it; we'll think about it.” It should provide some degree of substantive response. In this particular case, if the amendment is defeated, this provision would beef up that requirement.
There's an argument to be made that this could be done in other cases, but there's no reason not to do it in this case. If we simply gut this, as proposed, then we're back to a situation in which a committee makes recommendations and the government can say that it takes note of those recommendations.
Well, that's great, but what we think is important for meaningful accountability is a parliamentary trigger for sanctions, like those that exist in other jurisdictions, such as the United States, for example. It's so that if Parliament thinks it's important enough to say that this person should be sanctioned, the government has to provide a response explaining why they have taken a decision one way or the other. That response has to be provided. It can't be avoided through prorogation. I think that makes this a meaningful check on government. It's one that I think members will find useful, regardless of who the minister or who the government is.
:
If I may ask, is this for a clarification on sanctions in terms of evaluation? I see it is.
As you know, there are different systems across different countries, and the legal basis of those systems will affect how they deal with different discussions on sanctions.
In the U.K., we understand that there are a lot of discussions in Parliament, but as such, parliamentary committees just simply use regular means to express their views to the government, and the government will respond.
In the U.S., the division of power is very different in that context. Bills can be moved by different parts of the Congress, so those discussions will vary a lot. What has been happening over the years is that it is often through executive orders by the administration that sanctions decisions are made.
In terms of the EU, again it's complicated by the different levels of intervention in terms of competence, if you like, and in terms of the sanctions responsibilities. In the EU, there is the commission that deals with external matters and the European Union itself, but there's a big role given to the member states. The member states need to put forward proposals for discussion. It goes through various levels of committees and discussions in the EU, depending on whether there are trade elements that can go to different committees, so in the end, those discussions are more complex for them because they have many members and consensus must be obtained. Then you have a process that goes forward through all those committees by consensus and that comes, in the end, with recommendations for decisions.
Once sanctions are agreed to, the implementation goes to the member states. The member states themselves have to put in place the sanctions or put the implementation measures in place.
That's a general overview of our key like-minded partners on autonomous sanctions.
:
In terms of the implementation, yes, it's incumbent on all the member states to decide how they coordinate. If there are two levels of coordination, they will do it among themselves.
You also touched on coordination among countries across discussions internationally. That coordination happens as well, which can take a lot of time in terms of.... As you know, sanctions are most effective when we move together, so we try to have discussions to ensure that when we have common interests, we can work together to align them.
In this case, you would have, potentially, international discussions among Canada, the United States, EU members, etc., and then the EU members would themselves regroup and decide on what their best approach is, just like we would do in Canada with other departments in terms of deciding what the best Canadian approach would be.
Those different types of levels of discussions take time, yes.
I think that's a great idea, should everyone agree. However, as you know, there are number of different steps we have to take for adoption of that motion.
Is there unanimous consent to adopt the travel report?
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: Excellent.
Are we fine with “Wake-up Call: The World after February 24, 2022” as the title?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Excellent.
Next we have to determine that the chair, clerk and analysts be authorized to make such grammatical and editorial changes as may be necessary without changing the substance of the report.
Is that okay with everyone?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Excellent.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the chair present the report to the House and that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Awesome.
Okay, that sounds great.
I just wanted to highlight—