SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 126 - Nov/14/22

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

Nov/14/22 11:02:16 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-281

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to such important subjects as human rights and the track record of this government, this country, in that regard. Bill C‑281 is a private member's bill that was introduced by the Conservative member for Northumberland—Peterborough South. It is currently at second reading stage. Its long title, which is a bit complex, is an act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, or Sergei Magnitsky law, the Broadcasting Act and the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act. Given its title, we see that Bill C‑281 addresses some very distinct issues and makes significant amendments to a number of bills. I want to begin by saying that the Bloc Québécois will support this bill, which we definitely think is important, particularly when it comes to human rights. Bill C‑281 aims to increase the federal government's transparency and accountability when it comes to human rights. It does this in several ways. First, it proposes to “impose certain reporting requirements on the Minister of Foreign Affairs in relation to international human rights.” Second, it “amends the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act”, also know as the Sergei Magnitsky law. Third, it would “prohibit the issue, amendment or renewal of a licence in relation to a broadcasting undertaking” that is influenced by an entity that has committed crimes against humanity, such as genocide. Fourth, it “amends the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act to prohibit a person from investing in an entity that has contravened certain provisions of the Act”. Given the scope of the bill, I would like to focus my speech on the second area, namely, amending the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, which is known as the Magnitsky law. The story behind this act is particularly tragic and interesting. Sergei Magnitsky was a Moscow lawyer and he revealed the largest tax fraud in Russian history. This was a fraud that allegedly benefited President Putin personally. The whistle-blower was imprisoned and tortured for nearly a year and he died as a result of this abuse on November 16, 2009. No credible investigation has been conducted by Russian authorities into Sergei Magnitsky's detention, torture and death, and the individuals responsible have never been brought to justice. In what can only be described as a ludicrous twist, the Russian state held a posthumous trial in which Magnitsky was found guilty of the fraud that he had himself exposed to the entire world. In subsequent years, the United States, the European Parliament, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Italy and Poland all passed laws and motions condemning the poor treatment suffered by the Russian whistle-blower. In 2017, Canada followed suit by enacting its own Magnitsky law. This law essentially provides for restrictive measures against foreigners who are responsible for serious violations of internationally recognized human rights. One relevant amendment that Bill C‑281 makes to the Magnitsky law is that it would “require the Minister of Foreign Affairs to respond within 40 days”, or within any other time limit set by committee, “to a report submitted by a parliamentary committee that recommends that sanctions be imposed under that Act against a foreign national.” The minister's reply should be made public. It should also respond to the committee's recommendations and indicate whether an order or regulation will be made and explain the reasons for the decision. In short, Bill C‑281 proposes to increase the government's transparency and accountability regarding its decisions whenever invoking the Magnitsky law. For example, let us imagine learning the identities of the Iranian officials directly involved in the arrest, torture and murder of young Mahsa Amini. Let us imagine learning that some of those officials, those executioners, have assets in Canada such as land holdings, assets, bank accounts and so on. This law would allow a parliamentary committee to recommend freezing the assets of these individuals and to ask that the government respond to that recommendation within, say, two weeks. This bill would require that the Minister of Foreign Affairs provide a full and public response to the recommendation within a given time frame. In this case involving Iran, I have no doubt that it would take the necessary enforcement actions. After all, the elected members of this House have on more than one occasion expressed their support for the case of Mahsa Amini and condemned the Iranian regime for that crime. I think the results of the bill would be obvious. However, there are instances where we know very well that government may not want to take a stand on a human rights issue. We can also imagine that it may not want to make a decision public on an issue involving the Magnitsky law. I am thinking in particular of anything related to China and Saudi Arabia. With China, it could be out of fear or weakness. With Saudi Arabia, it could be in the interest of preserving an alliance with Canadian arms dealers. We know that those two countries are rogue states with respect to human rights. They would be deserving of Canadian sanctions targeting their nationals involved in serious human rights violations. One need only think of the current genocide of the Uighur minority in Xinjiang; of the terrible fate of Raif Badawi in Saudi Arabia, or journalist Jamal Khashoggi, who was brutally murdered in 2018, likely under the order of the Crown Prince; of the succession of abuses committed by the terror regime of Vladimir Putin against his opponents or simply his critics. In my view, Bill C‑281 is relevant, as it gives Parliament more power through its committees. Basically, in my opinion, this bill would strengthen our democracy. It could potentially even improve Canada's record in defending human rights. I say “potentially” because it would force the government to take a position, at the risk of revealing its priorities, for example, with respect to Canada's policies concerning China and Saudi Arabia. I would like to conclude my remarks by declaring my solidarity with the Iranian people, especially Iranian women, who, for 43 years, have been suffering unjustly from fanatical abuse inflicted by a handful of ultra-religious zealots. I am hopeful that Bill C‑281 will do more, but if it can help punish even one Iranian leader involved in the murder of Mahsa Amini or any other Iranian woman, this bill will have gone a long way. In my humble opinion, this bill is truly necessary and deserves to move forward.

1134 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 126 - Nov/14/22

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

Nov/14/22 3:40:24 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-32

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to explain something to me. The word “inflation” comes up 115 times in the document, but there is no mention of concrete measures. I am thinking about seniors, who keep taking hit after hit. There is nothing here for them. It never ends. Why is that? What does that have to do with the inflation we are seeing now and the looming recession?

72 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 126 - Nov/14/22

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

Nov/14/22 5:46:52 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-32

Madam Speaker, I acknowledge that, in principle, Bill C‑32 is about implementing economic provisions. First of all, I want to say that my colleague's comments towards his opposition colleagues are mean, nasty and pure rhetoric. The opposition members are clearly stating that the government is missing some good opportunities and avoiding big challenges that it could have attempted to address. I will give one example found in this statement, an example of a ridiculous measure that demonstrates it has failed to address major challenges. The statement indicates that the government will work on a Canada-U.S. agreement for compensation for government employees who go to the moon. What a fine and urgent priority. Does my colleague believe that it is important and pertinent to work on an agreement on compensation for government employees who go to the moon?

143 words