Hon. Leo Housakos (Acting Deputy Leader of the Opposition) moved second reading of Bill C-281, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law), the Broadcasting Act and the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act.

He said: Honourable senators, today I rise to speak about Bill C-281, the international human rights act.

This bill was authored and introduced in the other place by my Conservative colleague Philip Lawrence who is the Member of Parliament for Northumberland—Peterborough South. I want to commend MP Lawrence for bringing this bill forward, and for his commitment to upholding human rights around the world. This bill will strengthen Canada’s ability to say that we are walking the talk on upholding and promoting human rights on a global scale — a cause that resonates to the core of our Canadian values.

Bill C-281 has several provisions, including amendments to the Sergei Magnitsky Law, the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act and the Broadcasting Act. Each provision addresses a gap in Parliament’s ability to hold the government accountable in Canada’s defence of human rights around the world, a cause that I’m sure senators can agree transcends party lines and the government of the day.

Let me first speak to the amendment to the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, colloquially referred to as the Magnitsky Act. The Magnitsky Act equips our government with another tool to levy sanctions against human rights violators. However, I am disappointed to say that this tool has not been utilized as effectively as it could and should be, especially in recent years. Astonishingly, not a single entity or individual from China, for instance, has faced sanctions by Canada under the Magnitsky Act, despite repeated calls for such actions.

Take the situation in Hong Kong, a glaring example of why Bill C-281 is so necessary in today’s world. The ongoing human rights crackdown in Hong Kong, as senators know, continues despite repeated calls for the regime in Beijing to uphold its commitment to “one country, two systems.” We have seen ample evidence and many accounts of the situation on the ground in Hong Kong, but the current government has yet to lay sanctions on any official, whether it be a Hong Kong official or a PRC — People’s Republic of China — official. That’s despite many of those officials having ties to Canada, whether through property ownership, family members holding Canadian passports or having been educated here.

Simply put, no one has been held accountable by our country for the human rights abuses happening in Hong Kong.

What Bill C-281 seeks to do in amending the Magnitsky Act accomplishes two things: allowing parliamentary input and providing parliamentary oversight. Essentially, it will create a mechanism through which parliamentarians will be able to recommend foreign officials, like those involved in human rights violations in Hong Kong and other places in the world, to be included on sanctions lists.

That is something I had tried to do with my own bill amending the Magnitsky Act, but it can be done with this one instead. It is all the same to me.

Part of the rationale for this measure is that parliamentarians are in touch with human rights organizations and NGOs in a way that the ministers of the day might not be. It is therefore logical that parliamentarians should be able to recommend individuals for sanction to the minister.

It is important to note, however, that the minister is not obligated to comply with such recommendations. The minister remains free to accept or refuse those recommendations — and here is where the second part comes in — but they will have to provide an explanation why. It has been the tradition of this country that ministers are individually accountable to Parliament for their own actions and those of their department.

The amendment proposed in this bill will ensure that, within 40 days of either the House of Commons or Parliament passing a motion to sanction an individual or a group of individuals, Global Affairs Canada, or GAC, will have to report back to Parliament. This would enforce a greater and, I believe, more reasonable degree of accountability. If, in fact, either the Senate, the House of Commons or both have deemed that Magnitsky Act sanctions should be enforced, it is not unreasonable for Global Affairs Canada to come to a parliamentary committee and explain why they have determined otherwise.

To be abundantly clear, I want to reiterate that this amendment to the Magnitsky Act does not force GAC to take orders from Parliament regarding sanctioning. We, as parliamentarians, appreciate that there might be other considerations to be made in issuing such sanctions and do not want to be seen as impeding or interfering with the work of government.

As I said at the start, this amendment simply allows parliamentarians to have input and to be provided an explanation when that input is not acted upon. Colleagues, this isn’t about ego, a power struggle or some belief that parliamentarians know better than everyone else. I certainly do not believe so.

The author of this bill and I, as its sponsor in the Senate, genuinely believe that this measure of reporting and accountability will result in the sanctioning of more human rights abusers around the world in a more efficient and effective process. I think that’s everyone’s goal.

In the initial months after the Magnitsky Act came into force in Canada, we sanctioned a flurry of individuals in Myanmar, Russia and Venezuela. Since then, we have had very little activity from the government on that front. In fact, no one has been sanctioned under the Magnitsky Act since that initial flurry.

We want to put this reporting and accountability mechanism in place to encourage the government to utilize the tools it has to sanction those individuals who are committing the vilest of crimes and human rights atrocities around the world. If they aren’t utilizing those tools, we should know why so we can fix whatever needs to be fixed.

Another accountability provision in this legislation also places certain reporting requirements on the Minister of Foreign Affairs in relation to the work being done by our government in protecting international human rights, requiring the publication of a report outlining those activities. Initially, this provision called for the report to include the names and circumstances of individuals that the Canadian government and Global Affairs Canada are advocating for and working to get released.

However, to address concerns that such a disclosure could actually place some of these individuals or their families in harm’s way, an amendment was adopted at committee in the other place that gives the minister discretion regarding the disclosure of those names. The bill now states that the minister must make all reasonable efforts to consult with family members or representatives of the prisoners of conscience, and may decide not to include certain information in the list if a person consulted by the minister requests that the information not be included or the minister is satisfied that not including it would be in the best interests of the advancement of human rights or the personal safety of the prisoner.

That amendment was adopted in the spirit that, again, these reporting obligations are not in any way meant to restrict or obstruct GAC and the important work it does. Rather, it is designed to support the department.

We believe it will ensure that NGOs and the public will be better positioned to pressure governments around the world to release prisoners of conscience — people who are being held simply because of the beliefs and thoughts they have about the betterment of their countries. They are people who are fighting for human rights, freedom of expression and freedom of speech.

By raising public awareness in Canada and abroad about the incarceration and, sometimes, sadly, the torture of prisoners of conscience, we can give those people hope. More importantly, we can help drive out that evil, leading to the freedom of prisoners of conscience and advocates of democracy, women’s rights, LGBTQ2 rights and freedom.

The next provision of this bill restricts investments in companies that violate human rights or exploit developing nations with respect to cluster munitions. These provisions underscore our commitment to upholding international standards, our responsibility that we have previously passed on the matter and international treaties to which we are signatories.

Considering that the United States is not a signatory to the Dublin Convention and does, unfortunately, manufacture these types of weapons, there was a question raised in the other place about whether we would be running the risk of being lobbied by American weapons retailers to ensure that shareholders or people involved in those companies, for example, are not targeted by the bill. My colleague in the House, MP Philip Lawrence, responded with the following:

Political pressure has been shown to be incredibly powerful. Textron, which is one of the largest arms manufacturers located in the United States, stopped producing cluster munitions and specifically stated it was because of political pressure. Therefore, with things like this legislation, which would prevent the funding through Canadian businesses of cluster munitions, not only do we have a hard line in stopping them but we also continue to ramp up the political pressure. I would be glad to work alongside the member to stop the manufacturing of cluster munitions throughout the world.

That brings us to the fourth and final provision: empowering the government to ban state propaganda outlets that operate in Canada and spread disinformation, interfering in our public debate.

In the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, we saw RT, Russia’s state propaganda network, taken off Canadian airwaves. On March 16 of this year, the Government of Canada formally removed Russia Today and RT France from our airwaves on the basis that the distribution of those services were not in the public interest, as their content appears to constitute abusive comments or is likely to expose the Ukrainian people to hatred or contempt on the basis of race, or national or ethnic origin, and that their programming is antithetical to the achievement of the policy objectives of the Broadcasting Act.

Russian propaganda has no place on Canadian airwaves. In fact, no state propaganda should have a place in the Canadian broadcast system at all. Senators may recall the controversies surrounding CGTN, Beijing’s state propaganda arm, with its denial of the Uyghur genocide and the broadcasting of forced confessions from dissidents.

The Broadcasting Act amendments in this legislation are crucial to align Canada with like-minded partners, such as the U.K., which banned CGTN in 2021. State propaganda that aims to spread disinformation is acting against Canadian interests. While I support the CRTC’s decision to pull those licences, they shouldn’t have had to take such a broad approach in doing so. There should have been a more straightforward mechanism put in place to support this. This bill would give the CRTC a specific tool to say that country X or Y is committing genocide and spreading its propaganda in our country and, therefore, loses its right to broadcast in Canada.

This amendment simplifies the matter for the regulator instead of requiring it to sort of gerrymander around existing rules. We believe this is a modest but necessary amendment that would allow the CRTC to protect vulnerable Canadians and fight against misinformation.

To conclude, Bill C-281, the international human rights act, is a step in the right direction. It won’t solve all problems, honourable senators, but it will add another tool to Parliament’s toolbox. Canada has historically had a strong commitment to upholding human rights around the world. The provisions in this bill allow us to make sure that these are not just words, but the very principles by which we stand. This bill gives parliamentarians tools to compel the government of the day to take action, and to hold it accountable for the actions it does take in upholding human rights around the world. This bill passed with unanimous consent in the House, supported by all parties, and I hope that it will also pass unanimously and in a timely fashion in this place. Thank you, colleagues.

Senator Housakos: Absolutely.

Senator R. Patterson: This is specifically related to the “prohibiting cluster munitions” element of the act. I think this act is very supportable, but I am struck by our last speaker, who talked about our Ukrainian heritage and our support for Ukraine. While we understand that Canada will not use cluster munitions as part of how we move forward in defence, we are also supporting nations who are using cluster munitions, such as Ukraine.

How prescriptive is the act in terms of accountability provisions for those countries that do use cluster munitions? Right now, we have a bit of a balancing act to do. Thank you.

Senator Housakos: Thank you, Senator Lankin, for both of those questions. They are very important. You’re absolutely right — when you’re dealing with questions of intelligence and national security, there are things that we’re not privy to as parliamentarians, nor should we be. That’s why this bill is not prescriptive in that regard. It was amended to make sure ministers have the flexibility to be able to work within the confines of the information that they have.

Of course, I can go on and we can have a whole debate about our intelligence and security structure. You know very well from the position you sit in how efficient, agile, open and transparent it is. These are not easy solutions to resolve in a debate on the floor, but I hope they will be resolved because I believe they are causing challenges. We have seen far too often members of Parliament who are part of the executive branch and seem to not obtain certain information in a timely fashion, as they should have. That’s another debate for another time.

I think the bill is non-prescriptive. It gives full flexibility to the minister to share whatever information they want to share when they appear before a parliamentary committee, and they won’t be bound by recommendations from parliamentarians. What I think they will have is another intelligence source, because parliamentarians, especially those interested in human rights, work with various NGOs. We work with parliament-to-parliament relationships with democracies around the world, and also with countries that fall on the list of less democratic or, in some cases, even rogue countries. Even those parliamentarians in this chamber and in the House will be able to provide, I hope, added value and intelligence to the executive branch of government.

As you know from our debates on Bill C-11 and Bill C-18, I am a hawk on freedom of speech and not censoring any opinions, but even I believe there comes a point in time when we have to draw a line in the sand. That includes when we’re dealing with countries that are not aligned with our values, or with blatantly undemocratic tyrants who are trampling all over rights, privileges and democracy in their own countries. I’ll name some of those countries: China, Iran — Russia, of course, is right up there. I could go on. There comes a point in time when we say that enough is enough. When we see that they engage in deliberate cyberattacks and infiltration to gain influence over our economies, intellectual properties and institutions, we have to make those collective decisions, even though they go against unfettered freedom of expression. Of course, we have to do it in a diligent fashion.

Even in these latest updated amendments made to the Broadcasting Act, we took deliberate steps to try to create a framework for what the CRTC will find acceptable or not acceptable for Canadians to post and read. I don’t want to relitigate that debate, but we did not address what I believe is a far more serious issue — giving the CRTC the tools to act diligently and with the speed required to combat the misinformation coming from these rogue nations.

Senator Housakos: That is another very good question, senator. Canada, as you know, is a signatory to a number of treaties, particularly the Dublin treaty. We have no time for cluster munitions. We recognize that when countries enter a time of war, sometimes you even have signatories to these conventions that take drastic steps. We can get into a debate about how justified this is at various times; I’m always of the opinion that war and violence are never justified, except in self‑defence. If someone attacks my home, family and people, with all due respect to treaties and other commitments we have, all bets are off.

These are case-by-case decisions for our government and our Parliament when it comes to those particular times. You are absolutely right — we trade economically and have allies around the world who are not always completely aligned with us on everything. Cluster munitions is one of them. As we know, our largest trading partner and strongest political ally has engaged in constructing, building and selling them. I believe what this bill does is reinforce in our bilateral relationship with them that this is not something that we will tolerate. We won’t tolerate being pressured into reversing our position, and my understanding and sense is that, hopefully, it will help reinforce those on the other side of the border of the forty-ninth parallel who are of the view that the Americans can defend themselves in an appropriate fashion without using this hugely destructive tool in the art of war. There are many weapons in the art of war that can be used in self-defence, and, for that matter, in offensive operations as well.

(On motion of Senator Patterson (Nunavut), debate adjourned.)

On Other Business, Reports of Committees, Other, Order No. 40, by the Honourable Bernadette Clement:

Consideration of the fourth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, entitled Hydrogen: A Viable Option for a Net‑Zero Canada in 2050?, tabled in the Senate on May 9, 2023.