Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the committee for this invitation to speak to Bill C-353.

I'm here on behalf of the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, a coalition of 44 Canadian civil society organizations that works to defend civil liberties in the context of national security and anti-terrorism measures. Through our work, we are acutely aware of the severe impacts faced by individuals who are taken hostage or arbitrarily detained. It is clear that more must be done to support the survivors of such acts and their families and loved ones.

We have been active in supporting Canadian citizens and permanent residents who have faced arbitrary detention abroad. These include the well-known cases of Maher Arar, Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad Abou-Elmaati and Muayyed Nureddin, all of whom were detained and tortured in Syrian prisons, as well as Khaled Al-Qazzaz, who was arbitrarily detained by the military government in Egypt, and Abousfian Abdelrazik, who was arbitrarily detained and tortured by Sudanese national security forces. More recently, we have advocated for the return of all Canadians arbitrarily detained in northeast Syria, including Canadian women and children in detention camps, and Canadian men being held incommunicado without charges and in life-threatening conditions in prisons.

We cannot be clearer that hostage-taking and arbitrary detention violate Canadian and international law and that Canada must act to address these crimes. While we agree with the intent of the bill to support survivors and their families, we are not certain that this bill is necessary. It could in fact have negative unintended consequences in countering arbitrary detention and could have broader consequences.

First, we are overall skeptical of attempts to establish new sanctions regimes in general. There is a growing body of research suggesting that the increase in unilateral sanctions regimes has not been effective in protecting rights internationally. They can result in wasted resources and can have severe unintended consequences for the delivery and provision of international aid.

If sanctions are believed to be necessary, they must be narrow and targeted. We believe this is not the case with Bill C-353. It would target not only individuals but also broadly defined foreign entities and entire foreign states, including, according to paragraph 5(3)(a), the property of any national within a sanctioned state. This poses a real threat of unintended consequences that could impact humanitarian aid, international assistance, peacebuilding and even diplomacy. It also means that such sanctions could, if a government wanted to, be used to punish broad swaths of foreign nationals, their governments and their associations in arbitrary ways.

Second, we are concerned about the low thresholds in this bill. For example, clause 5 allows for the levying of sanctions on the basis that the Governor in Council is “of the opinion” that a foreign national, state or entity is “responsible for, or complicit in” hostage-taking or state-to-state arbitrary detention. These are incredibly broad powers to be granted based solely on opinion. Moreover, clause 7, in allowing the minister to require any person to provide any information that is relevant to an order or regulation under clause 5, would permit the minister to go on a fishing expedition for information. There are no provisions for how that information is to be handled or disposed of.

Third, the definition of “arbitrary detention in state-to-state relations” will exclude some of the gravest cases of state-sanctioned arbitrary detention. The definition of arbitrary detention in this bill requires that “a person arbitrarily arrests or detains the individual to compel action from, or exercise leverage over, a foreign government.”

In all of the cases I listed at the beginning, the arbitrary detention was either done with Canada's complicity or done for objectives unrelated to Canada, not done to compel action from a foreign government. Beyond the cases I stated above, we can also look, among others, to that of Huseyin Celil, a Canadian citizen and Uyghur human rights activist originally from China who has been arbitrarily detained by that government since 2006. Given that China's interest has nothing to do with influencing Canada or another state but rather with punishing human rights activism, we believe this act would not apply.

Fourth, the very broad application of sanctions within this legislation, including to anyone who makes available any property to a sanctioned state, entity or individual working on their behalf, would prohibit the provision of aid. While clause 6 allows the minister to provide a “permit to carry out a specified activity” that would violate an order under this act, the length of time it would take to secure a permit could have severe impacts on the timely delivery of aid and could lead to organizations simply not applying at all. Moreover, it could negatively impact instances where families or employers are negotiating with hostage-takers. They may need to act quickly, but they would risk violating this order unless they receive a permit.

Finally, we agree completely that more must be done to support the survivors of these horrendous acts and their families and loved ones. However, we do not believe this support should be tied to a sanctions regime, nor are we convinced the answer lies in new legislation. We would point instead to the recommendation of this committee's 2018 report on the provision of consular services. There are clearly other levers already available to the government to act in this area, if only there is the political will to use them. We urge the government and committee to further pursue that path.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

Transcript

Discussions (0)