Past Session:

Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade

Issue No. 20 - Evidence - Meeting of March 29, 2017

OTTAWA, Wednesday, March 29, 2017

The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, to which was referred Bill S-219, An Act to deter Iran-sponsored terrorism, incitement to hatred, and human rights violations, met this day at 4:21 p.m. to give clause-by-clause consideration to the bill; and, in camera, for the consideration of future business (draft agenda).

Senator A. Raynell Andreychuk (Chair) in the chair.

[English]

The Chair: Senators, we have waited the extra time. We were to start at 4:15. The clerk is telling me that the record said at 4:15 we could start, so we are going to start.

Honourable senators, I call this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade to order. We are now at the stage where the committee —

Sorry, Senator Woo?

Senator Woo: I move:

That this committee recommend that Bill S-219 be not further proceeded with at this time.

If there's need for a seconder to this motion, I am willing to pause, but I have a little speech I would like to give to explain my reasons for why I believe that this committee should not proceed with Bill S-219.

The Chair: What are you saying? That you want it deferred?

Senator Woo: This procedure is provided for in our Rules. I move that we recommend to the chamber that we not proceed with Bill S-219 and, therefore, not go to clause by clause. As I say, if you need a seconder, I would invite any of my colleagues to second, but I have an explanation that can be included in the report as to why I believe we should not proceed with this bill.

May I continue, then?

The Chair: Pursuant to rule 12-23(1)?

Senator Woo: I defer to the clerk's expertise on this issue.

The Chair: You're saying that when a committee report recommends that the Senate not proceed further with a bill, the report must state the reasons for this.

Senator Woo: Yes, and I'm prepared to give my reasons as soon as I have the permission of the chair to proceed.

The Chair: All right.

I'm asking for the clerk's ruling regarding whether we proceed to hear from Senator Woo and other senators before this is put to a vote.

We are now getting a ruling, which is that I will proceed until the point of clause by clause, where, Senator Woo, you are then invited to make your comments.

Senator Woo: I see.

The Chair: Senators, we are at the stage where the committee will complete its examination of Bill S-219, An Act to deter Iran-sponsored terrorism, incitement to hatred, and human rights violations, and go through the bill clause by clause. If, at any point, a senator is not clear where we are in the process, please ask for a clarification. I've just asked for one, so I think that's fair. I want to ensure that at all times we have the same understanding of where we are in the process.

In terms of the mechanics of the process, I wish to remind senators that when more than one amendment is proposed to be moved in a clause, amendments should be proposed in the order of the lines of a clause.

Finally, I wish to remind honourable senators that if there is ever any uncertainty as to the results of a voice vote or show of hands, the most effective route is to request a roll call, which obviously provides unambiguous results.

Senators are aware that any tied vote negates the motion in question.

Are there any questions about that? I don't see any.

Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-219, An Act to deter Iran- sponsored terrorism, incitement to hatred, and human rights violations?

Senator Woo: I move, colleagues, that this committee recommend that we not go to clause by clause and that Bill S- 219 be not further proceeded with.

Colleagues, this bill is seriously flawed for at least three reasons. First, it will not accomplish its stated purpose. Second, it will damage Canada's efforts to re-establish diplomatic relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Third, it will have unintended consequences for a variety of Canadian interests in Iran, including adverse effects on many Canadians of Iranian descent. I believe the flaws in this bill are too fundamental and too many to warrant the further attention of honourable senators in this committee or our colleagues in the chamber as a whole.

I would preface my remarks by saying that I acknowledge and respect the sincere intent of the bill's sponsors and its supporters to deter Iran-sponsored terrorism, incitement to hatred, and human rights violations. I share these objectives but disagree strongly about the efficacy and the wisdom of Bill S-219.

Allow me to briefly review some of the witness testimony to support my reasons for this motion. The first has to do with efficacy. We heard from a number of experts who testified that the proposed bill is very unlikely to change the behaviour of the Iranian regime.

You will recall Professor George Lopez, from the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, who said:

I think the likelihood is very low because you don't have the volume and diversity of economic interactions, and, unless you are engaged at a secondary level with subsidiaries and others of your country that, from Europe or North Africa, are engaged with Iran, things that are not readily apparent, I think your leverage is at a relatively low level.

If anything, the proposed bill has the potential to encourage antithetical behaviour, due to lack of incentives for the Iranian regime to be in compliance. I quote Richard Nephew, Senior Research Scholar at Columbia University, who testified:

Simply put, as I read it, this bill requires Iran to make progress on such a great variety of bad acts that it removes the Canadian government's ability to respond to and reward improvement in any one particular element. "All for one and one for all'' is a good rallying cry but, in sanctions practice, it often leads to the absence of any material progress along multiple fronts. There is simply no incentive for a foreign government to take the potentially difficult steps necessary to address bad behaviour because they will simply expect the sanctioning state's demands to never cease.

Put another way, this legislation could be a roadblock to the Canadian government's ability to incentivize positive changes by Iran in areas of terrorism or human rights.

I also cite Cheryl Thomas, who submitted a written testimony, a woman who lived and worked in Iran between 2004 and 2012, who said:

Deeper Canadian sanctions will have no impact on Iran and will do nothing to influence Iran re: human rights violations. Canada can have influence from inside the country by facilitating business; providing educational opportunities; and, coordinating with the UN — which has just signed a new 4 year United Nations Development Assistance Framework . . . agreement with Iran . . . .

The second reason for my opposition to this bill is the damage that it will do to Canadian efforts to re-engage with Iran. The Canadian government has stated its intention to re-engage with that country in a cautious, step-by-step manner. The sanctions proposed under Bill S-219 would seriously impede these efforts.

I cite the testimony of Alexandra Bugailiskis, Assistant Deputy Minister for Europe Middle East and Maghreb of Global Affairs Canada:

The government believes that it is through dialogue, not withdrawal and isolation, that it can advance Canada's interests, including consular services to Canadians, and trade and foreign policy interests.

Further, she says:

. . . Bill S-219 would likely hinder the re-establishment of "normal'' diplomatic relations with Iran for two reasons: 1) It would constrain the discretion and therefore the capacity of the Government to re-engage with Iran, and, 2) Iran would likely respond negatively to its introduction.

I quote further from Ms. Bugailiskis:

Ultimately, Bill S-219 would therefore limit the capacity of the Government of Canada to pursue and eventually conclude a complex process to re-establish diplomatic ties with Iran.

Listen also to the words of Richard Nephew, previously cited, from Columbia University:

. . . my concern is that, in practice, Canada would simply find itself on the margins of international relations with Iran.

And George Lopez, also previously cited, from the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies:

. . . the more that Western states like Canada and the United States can aggressively establish more diplomatic and political ties, the more we can engage in trade, the more we enhance the prospects that a moderate successor to Rouhani will continue the long process of change.

Allow me to also report the opposing position so that you can see how stark the choice is before us. Mr. Shahram Golestaneh of the Iran Democratic Association has stated before this committee:

"Are there any preconditions for even engagement in Iran?'' I would say definitely. All of these things we are discussing in this bill can be preconditions . . . .

In other words, supporters of the bill are not even arguing that this bill will not hinder the process of diplomatic re- engagement. They are arguing that there should be no re-engagement unless the conditions of the bill are fully met.

This is an extraordinarily hard line position that runs counter to Canada's reputation for fair-minded diplomacy.

The third reason for my opposition to this bill and my suggestion that we recommend to not proceed with it is that it can have unintended consequences. The risk of these unintended adverse consequences is great. I quote Nader Hashemi, Director of the Centre for Middle East Studies at the University of Denver:

My primary concern is that this bill will prevent Canada from playing a more constructive role in terms of supporting Iranian civil society and the pro-democracy movement within Iran.

Further, he says:

. . . I believe Bill S-219 is counterproductive. In my reading it represents "more of the same.'' Specifically, it continues a pattern of short-term thinking on Iran, scolding it for its bad behaviour.

I quote also Richard Nephew from the Centre for Global Energy Policy at Columbia University:

For Canada, because you are more remote and distant, and because trade ties have been fairly modest, potentially aggressive steps, especially if not taken in concert with other actors, would mean the Iranians would say, "Forget it. We don't need to deal with you all that much.

And Bijan Ahmadi, President of the Iranian Canadian Congress, in response to the Special Economic Measures Act, which already imposed sanctions on Iran and which this bill would seek to expand and strengthen, has said the following:

. . . the sanctions imposed by SEMA, created often insurmountable barriers for honest and hard-working Iranian-Canadians. Many business owners who were dependent on the trade between Iran and Canada for their livelihood suddenly found their legitimate business activities rendered illegal. Additionally, banks refused to deal with those who had or were perceived to have any financial links to Iran, whether personal or business. This even resulted in the closure of the bank accounts of Iranian-Canadians, including Canadian citizens, for no other reason than because they hold Iranian citizenship as well.

I further quote Mr. Ahmadi:

Even today, after the government eased some of it sanctions on Iran in February 2016, some financial institutions are still applying the same rules and we have received several reports from ordinary Iranian- Canadians who have been subjected to discrimination by banks.

Colleagues, more broadly, the unintended consequences extend to missed business opportunities that would benefit ordinary Iranians.

Mr. Tabasinejad, Policy Chair of the Iranian Canadian Congress, has said that sanctions have harmed Canadian businesses at large, which have not been able to access Iran's untapped market of 18 million people. As sanctions have been eased on Iran, many international businesses, especially European companies, have entered the Iranian market while Canadian companies have been lagging behind because of our lack of relations and the uncertainty surrounding our sanctions regime.

As members of this committee are aware, a petition in favour of re-establishing diplomatic relations with Iran was posted on the House of Commons' website in September 2016. A counter petition calling for the government to make re-establishment of diplomatic relations with Iran conditional on human rights was posted on the same website one week later.

The petition in favour of diplomatic re-engagement received 15,781 signatures. The petition against diplomatic re- engagement was able to muster only 607 signatures.

To conclude, I came to this bill with an open mind and was prepared to give it a full airing in the chamber even if I did not agree with many of its provisions. In the course of committee hearings, however, I have come to the conclusion that the bill is so deeply and fundamentally flawed that it will not be a good use of senators' time to have further debate in the chamber.

I thank colleagues for indulging my intervention. I appreciate the fact that some of you are willing for this bill to proceed to the chamber even though you disagree with it. If that is the committee's will to proceed with the bill, I will of course respect that will, the majority decision. But if that happens, I will use my opportunity in the chamber to once again speak against Bill S-219.

The Chair: Thank you, Senator Woo. I was not aware that you were going to put this motion. You said you wanted reasons, but actually you put more than the reasons; you've put your case before the committee.

There is one rule that I just looked up, and I've conferred, that we could proceed to discuss this motion pursuant to rule 12-16(1)(d), which would allow the committee to move in camera in order to discuss this motion, or we could continue in public, whichever the wish of the group is.

I have to give you all the rules so that you know. Is it your wish to continue in a public debate now? Agreed?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: You've made your submission, so now I will turn to my list and Senator Downe.

Senator Downe: Thank you, Senator Woo, for that extensive overview of testimony we've heard. I share almost all your views except the conclusion. My view is it should not be this small group of senators deciding what the Senate considers. My view would be to move it from this committee to the Senate. In the Senate, it would be my position currently, with the testimony I have heard, to come to the same conclusions you came to. But I don't think this group should exclude other senators from participating in that decision, whatever it will be. Therefore, I'm in favour of us passing it to the Senate for further debate and discussion.

Senator Housakos: I will be very brief and just echo the comments of our deputy chair. I agree totally. This bill has been extensively studied at this committee. We have had a number of witnesses. I think it warrants a debate at the higher level of the chamber of the whole.

I appreciate Senator Woo coming to the committee and articulating a point of view, but in all fairness, after the number of hearings and exchanges with witnesses that have taken place at this committee, if you wanted to make a compelling argument as a witness, any senator is welcome to come before the committee to do that. Now is not the appropriate time to curtail this and prevent further debate from taking place in the Senate.

I encourage this committee to take Senator Woo's motion to a vote.

Senator Bovey: I second Senator Woo's motion.

Senator Gold: For my part, respectfully, it was quite appropriate to have brought the motion at this stage. Our opportunity as committee members to discuss things beyond listening to witnesses is circumscribed by time, to say the least.

Although I believe that Iran is the world's preeminent sponsor of terrorism and inciter of hatred, I actually oppose this bill, albeit on somewhat narrower grounds than my colleague. I think the sanctions are simply too blunt and impose far too many constraints on the discretion of our government in its delicate challenge of moving forward with Iran.

That said, although I do not support this bill, will not support it and will be prepared to speak against it in the chamber, I would vote to send this to the chamber for a fuller debate.

Senator Housakos: Question.

Senator Cools: Senators haven't spoken yet. Be patient. You're young. You have lots of time.

Colleagues and chair, this procedure that Senator Woo has invoked has been used many times. I've been on committees where it has been used. It has been used in the committee, contrary to what Senator Housakos thinks, because the committee makes the choice not to defeat the bill in a committee but to recommend to the Senate that it not be further proceeded with.

Senator Woo's concerns are valid and real. I don't much like the bill, despite the fact that it comes from a very dear friend, Senator Tkachuk. I really do not like the bill, and I suspect that there are large and numerous doubts in the minds of many senators respecting this bill.

The issue before you, Madam Chair, is how to move forward on his proposal. That is the real challenge before us — not the outcome, but how to move forward justly and judiciously with his proposal, which is an extremely valid one procedurally.

The Chair: Just to clarify, it is not a question of whether Senator Woo's motion is valid. I was not aware of it, and I want to be absolutely precise that I follow the rules correctly.

Senator Cools: Absolutely.

The Chair: That is why I am trying to bring everything to the attention of the committee. It was compounded with the fact also that there were differences of opinion as to whether we were starting at 4:15 or when the Senate ended. That's why all of it is there. It is not to talk about the motion.

Sometimes we get an alert from a senator, and that's very helpful to the chair, but that's not necessary. So I appreciate that we are following the rules. I hope everyone else feels comfortable with that.

Senator Wells: Thank you, colleagues, for continuing this discussion. I have spoken in the past on a number of issues. One was ballistic missile defence. Two of the countries that come up more often than others as our greatest threats are North Korea and Iran. Iran is well known as a state sponsor of terrorism, perhaps one of the leading state sponsors of terrorism.

I'm not in favour of policies of appeasement, as they just haven't worked. History has shown that these policies haven't worked, and I think withdrawing a strong condemnation of what Iran is doing is part of a policy of appeasement. For that reason alone, I would like to see this bill go through, but I also welcome having that discussion on the Senate floor.

[Translation]

Senator Saint-Germain: I was probably not clear enough when we spoke in the library earlier. When I said that the senator would oppose the study, I was thinking of a motion. So you are correct in saying that it is normal for the chair to be informed. I also think that the rules —

[English]

The Chair: I didn't say it's normal. If I get a heads up, I can do my homework faster.

[Translation]

Senator Saint-Germain: I consider it normal and that is why I informed you. No doubt, I was not clear enough. I think the procedure exists and that we would have to vote now or once the senators have made their comments. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Does anyone else wish to make any comments or speak to the issue? Are you ready to have the motion put?

Hon. Senators: Question.

The Chair: Do you want the motion read again, or are you aware of it and prepared to —

Senator Cools: No, it should be read. Before every vote, the whole motion should always be read.

The Chair: Can you read it, Senator Woo, so we are absolutely certain we have the right one here?

Senator Woo: I move:

That this committee recommends that Bill S-219 be not further proceeded with.

The Chair: Is everyone clear on the motion?

Senator Cools: And that would mean recommend to the Senate? The recommendation is to the Senate, obviously?

Senator Woo: Yes, that's right. So this committee would tell the Senate that we —

Senator Cools: But a report of this committee will say that to the Senate.

Senator Woo: That's the effect of this motion.

Senator Cools: That's how it works.

The Chair: Is everyone clear?

All those in favour of —

Senator Cools: No, we have not heard the whole motion now because he clarified it even more.

The Chair: Well, I don't have —

Senator Cools: I'm sure he has a copy of it. He can lend it to you.

The Chair: That would be helpful.

Senator Woo: I read all I have in my notes.

Senator Cools: Maybe, chair, he can read it slowly and Marie-Eve could capture it in her fast shorthand.

The Chair: We are putting a lot of pressure on a new clerk.

Senator Woo: I will read it again and amend it slightly based on Senator Cools' helpful intervention.

I move:

That this committee recommend to the Senate that Bill S-219 be not further proceeded with.

Is that clear?

The Chair: Are we now clear on the motion recommending that the Senate not proceed with Bill S-219?

Senator Housakos: Chair, the motion has to be deposited in both official languages, right? Are you sure, Shaila? A committee motion? Because it's on record through translation?

The Chair: There are no requirements for motions. I understand there are for amendments.

Senator Housakos: I'm just verifying.

Okay, question. I don't want to delay the process.

Senator Cools: If I have understood them, the report to the committee will include this recommendation. In other words, the report says to the Senate that we should not further continue it. I mean, the purpose of the report is to deliver that.

The Chair: As I understand it, step by step, this is a motion put forward to the committee that we recommend to the Senate that the bill not be further proceeded with.

Okay, so we vote on that. But if it passes, we then have the obligation that the report to the Senate must state the reasons for this. If it doesn't, then we proceed with clause by clause. As long as everyone is clear with that, we're working our way through the procedure here nicely.

Are there any further comments?

All those in favour?

Has anyone requested a recorded vote?

Senator Downe: No.

The Chair: Do you want a recorded vote?

Senator Woo: Yes, a recorded vote.

Senator Cools: I'm surprised.

The Chair: First I'll ask verbally.

Senator Cools: I'm surprised that the debate is so cursory. If it is such a serious matter, I think it should be debated some more.

The Chair: Every senator has the opportunity to debate it. I have asked for any further debate and I have not received any, so I asked whether you would be prepared to move with the motion, and I understood you were.

Normally, I would say "All those in favour? All those opposed?'' If someone wishes a roll call, someone should say so.

Senator Ngo: A "yea'' or "nay'' first.

The Chair: Voice vote first?

You're requesting a roll call? It's agreed, then, we will go to a roll call.

Marie-Eve Belzile, Clerk of the Committee: The Honourable Senator Andreychuk?

The Chair: No, to the motion.

Ms. Belzile: The Honourable Senator Beyak?

Senator Beyak: No.

Ms. Belzile: The Honourable Senator Bovey?

Senator Bovey: Yes.

Ms. Belzile: The Honourable Senator Cools?

Senator Cools: Yes.

Ms. Belzile: The Honourable Senator Downe?

Senator Downe: No.

Ms. Belzile: The Honourable Senator Gold?

Senator Gold: No.

Ms. Belzile: The Honourable Senator Housakos?

Senator Housakos: No.

Ms. Belzile: The Honourable Senator Marwah?

Senator Marwah: Yes.

Ms. Belzile: The Honourable Senator Ngo?

Senator Ngo: No.

Ms. Belzile: The Honourable Senator Oh?

Senator Oh: No.

[Translation]

Ms. Belzile: The Honourable Senator Saint-Germain?

Senator Saint-Germain: Abstain.

[English]

Ms. Belzile: The Honourable Senator Wells?

Senator Wells: No.

Ms. Belzile: The Honourable Senator Woo?

Senator Woo: Yes.

Ms. Belzile: No, eight; yes, four; abstentions, one. The "nays'' have it.

The Chair: If I understand the rules, and no one objects to it, the next step is that we would proceed to clause-by- clause consideration of Bill S-219, An Act to deter Iran-sponsored terrorism, incitement to hatred, and human rights violations. Is it agreed?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.