44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 14, 2022 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, it is an immense honour for me to speak in support of Bill C-281, the international human rights act, and to recognize this as legislation that would bring together a number of important measures that advance human rights.
I want to recognize the work done by my colleague and friend from Northumberland—Peterborough South. We were together in Mississauga about a week ago doing a town hall on the legislation. It was really incredible to see a number of different communities represented at that event, and the diversity of experience that has driven people who want to see the legislation pass.
When I was first elected, I started sharing the story of my grandmother. My grandmother was a Holocaust survivor. Learning about her experience in Germany during the Second World War was a key motivator for me to get involved in international human rights work. I would share her stories and our family's experience with the different people I met. I would often hear people sharing their stories of other kinds of mass atrocities, genocides and persecutions that they or their families had experienced, which led them to come to Canada.
One of the things that is striking about our multiculturalism in Canada is that we have many people who have come to our country fleeing different kinds of persecutions, mass atrocities and genocide. Many of those have come as refugees. They carry with them the experience of trauma and violence against their families and their communities.
Those communities and those who are refugees or descendants of refugees have been a key motivator in pushing the House to do more when it comes to defending international human rights and putting forward some of the concrete ideas around this bill.
Right now, we see the horrific genocidal invasion of Ukraine happening. We see violent repression inside Russia against civil society, pro-democracy activists and others. We see the heroic freedom movement taking place in Iran. We see the worsening human rights situation in Sri Lanka. We have the Uighur genocide and other human rights abuses in China. There are many places with instances of human rights abuses.
This legislation does not name specific countries. It is not about addressing individual human rights issues as one-offs. It is about changing the framework with respect to the way the Government of Canada approaches human rights, putting in place a framework that will push the government to always prioritize human rights in its foreign policy. We need to do that not just today, but into the future. We need to do that not just in relation to particular hot spots we see, but do that, in general, in every case.
The bill is called the international human rights act. A key aspect of it that relates to most of its provisions is accountability. This is legislation that would establish accountability around human rights in two principle ways. It would force the Government of Canada to be more accountable to Parliament and the parliamentary committees when it comes to human rights. It also seeks to hold perpetrators of human rights violations accountable for their actions.
Let us start by talking about the aspect of holding the government accountable. Do I have criticisms of the government of the day's approach to human rights? Yes, I do, but the legislation is not just about the government today. It is about establishing a framework whereby any government of Canada in the future would be more accountable to Parliament when it comes to fulfilling its obligations on human rights. It would apply to future Conservative governments. It would apply to any government, that human rights should be a central part of our approach to foreign policy.
The bill would require the Government of Canada to table an annual report of the work it is doing on advancing human rights. This would be a way of clearly signalling what work the government is doing and maybe give parliamentarians an opportunity to identify absences and things the government should be doing, but is not doing. This is a powerful accountability mechanism. It is a jumping-off point for raising questions, pointing out gaps and asking the government to do more in certain respects.
The legislation also calls for that report to specifically identify prisoners of conscience, individuals who are detained around the world, who should not be detained and who Canada is advocating for their release.
There has been some debate in this opening section of the bill. Is the requirement to list prisoners of conscience appropriate? Are there cases where the government might not want to publicly list prisoners of conscience because, in some cases, private advocacy would be more effective by not naming someone publicly?
First, I know the member who is sponsoring the bill, and those of us Conservatives who are on the foreign affairs committee, will certainly be open to a discussion around reasonable amendments and hearing from witnesses as to how to strengthen aspects of the legislation. However, any exception to the public naming of prisoners of conscience should be clearly circumscribed and sufficiently narrow. What we hear overwhelmingly from family members and advocates of people who have been detained is that bringing more attention to these cases is virtually always helpful. When we say the names, when we talk about Huseyin Celil for example, when we bring more attention to these cases, their families and advocates want us to do that. They want us to highlight the fact that they are arbitrarily detained to ensure they are not forgotten. Through saying their names, by speaking out about their cases and calling for their release, we bring more attention and more pressure to that call.
Might there be exceptions? Sure. As a committee, we should talk about how to refine those cases, but there should not be carte blanche for the government to not list names maybe for some strategic foreign policy reason. We want to be bringing as much attention to these instances of arbitrary detention as possible. What we have heard from civil society is that bringing attention to these cases of arbitrary detention is helpful to those prisoners of conscience.
With respect to the international human rights act, accountability is a key part of it. One aspect of that accountability is holding the Government of Canada accountable. It has to publish this report and identify the prisoners of conscience for whose release it is advocating. It would allow us to ask questions about why this or that name is not on the list as well as suggest names that maybe should have been on that list, hoping that they are added in subsequent years, and to increase the work the Government of Canada is doing, specifically to advocate for the release of people who are wrongfully detained.
Another aspect of the accountability piece is an amendment to the Magnitsky act. I recognize the great work done in passing the Magnitsky act. It was introduced by my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman. It was passed unanimously in the House. In fact, Canada was the first country to adopt Magnitsky sanctions legislation. We have also seen it adopted around the world.
The challenge with the Magnitsky act is that it gives a tool to the government with respect to sanctioning human rights abusers, but the tool is only as good as its use. If we, as a legislature, empower the government, as we have, with the ability to impose Magnitsky sanctions but it does not actually sanction people who are abusing human rights then we have not used that tool and it has not had the desired effect.
The fact is that there are many countries with significant human rights problems where the government has sanctioned no one and therefore there is a vital need for us to use the Magnitsky act more. That is why we are introducing with this legislation a parliamentary trigger, a mechanism whereby if a parliamentary committee passes a motion to call on the government to sanction someone, the government would have to provide a response within 40 days or another timeline prescribed by the committee. It still leaves the government with the discretion around who to sanction, which is fair enough, because it will have access to information that the House does not have. Ultimately, it is the government's responsibility to make these kinds of decisions, but we want a mechanism that requires more accountability and puts more pressure on the government to actually use the Magnitsky sanctions, something it has been reluctant to do. This accountability would push the Government of Canada to do more with respect to human rights.
Also, applying Magnitsky sanctions is about holding the perpetrators of human rights violations accountable. When there are human rights violations, Magnitsky sanctions are a way of saying to the perpetrators of those abuses that they cannot travel to or move their money to Canada. Hopefully, if countries work in concert to apply Magnitsky sanctions, it would be a significant deterrent for the human rights abusers who potentially want an escape valve from the authoritarian regimes of which they are a part.
It is a powerful coincidence that the day this bill is coming to a vote at second reading is the anniversary of the death of Sergei Magnitsky. I hope we honour his memory and the memories of all the victims of human rights violations around the world by passing the bill, bringing it to committee, studying it further and certainly looking for ways to improve and strengthen it. With this legislation we can position Canada's foreign policy, not just in this Parliament but for generations to come, so Canada can be a leader in human rights and can follow through with exactly what those communities and the people we have been meeting with across the country want us to do.
1654 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/14/22 6:31:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in certain respects it has been a weird fall. Right now, as colleagues know, we are in Adjournment Proceedings, which is when we can follow up on questions asked earlier in question period.
A few weeks back, I asked about the government's plan to triple the carbon tax, therefore increasing the cost of gas, groceries, home heating and other goods that increasingly feel out of reach for many Canadians. In these times, the finance minister's way of saying that she feels their pain is to acknowledge that she has also had to make sacrifices by cancelling her Disney+ subscription. If that cancellation gets her out of the fantasy world she has been living in, then I think it is a good thing. Ironically, though, video streaming services are one of the only things that will not be affected by carbon tax increases.
Earlier this fall, I asked a question of the government about its carbon tax plans and I inserted into my question some of the lyrics from Bohemian Rhapsody. This is because shortly before the Prime Minister had gone to London, ostensibly to attend the Queen's funeral. He had stayed in a hotel room that cost $6,000 a night and stayed up late singing Bohemian Rhapsody in a bar somewhere. One could get a lot of Disney+ for $6,000 a night, but of course this was taxpayers' money. If I had spent $6,000 a night of someone else's money on a hotel room, I would have at least had the decency to stay in and enjoy it.
I put some Bohemian Rhapsody lyrics into my original question and it got a lot of attention on social media, I think, for three distinct reasons. First, it may have been the question itself. Second, there was an unexpected camera angle. Third was the fact that a member of the parliamentary press gallery thought the question was so lame that I should be shot like a horse. This suggests to me that he knows as much about the care of animals as he does politics.
This series of events was so unusual that it left me wondering:
Is this the real life? Or is this just fantasy?Disney+ pushed aside; that's the finance minister's new reality.New vacation highs, flying through the skies for free. Liberal caucus plots, I have some sympathy.Foreign ministers have been easy come, easy goLittle high, little low.Foreign interference doesn't really matter to them.Mama, a journalist just threatened to kill a man.(Wait, he's not a journalist.) Mama, a Liberal staffer with a press gallery pass just threatened to kill a man.(Of course, I don't mean literally a Liberal staffer but figuratively. He's not literally a Liberal staffer.)Mama, my career had just began, but Dale Smith wants to blow it all away.If I'm not back again this time tomorrow.Carry on, carry on.
I see it is late and my time is almost gone, so I will conclude my remarks there and await the government's fandango of a response.
524 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/14/22 6:38:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is clear that the parliamentary secretary has not cancelled his Disney+ subscription, because he still seems to think money grows on trees.
I will put the following points to him. The Governor of the Bank of Canada has said that inflation here in Canada is being caused by domestic policy. The same has been said by the former governor of the Bank of Canada and future leader of the Liberal Party, Mark Carney.
The government's proposal to triple the carbon tax and increase the cost of vital necessities such as gas, groceries and home heating is not going to help tackle inflation. The government's plan is to raise taxes on goods that are vitally necessary for Canadians and to balloon government spending, in the vast number of cases, on things totally unrelated to measures that Canadians can see, touch and feel, such as $54 million for the ArriveCAN app, $6,000 a night for a hotel room for the Prime Minister and an ineffective infrastructure bank. The government is taxing Canadians, causing inflation and making life less affordable.
183 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
