Bill C-219

Sergei Magnitsky International Anti-Corruption and Human Rights Act

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 Special Economic Measures Act and the Broadcasting Act

This enactment amends the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act to impose certain requirements on the Minister of Foreign Affairs in relation to international human rights.
It also amends the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law) to provide that
(a) transnational repression be sanctioned;
(b) visas or other documents must not be issued to immediate family members of a foreign national who is the subject of an order or regulation made under section 4 of the Act;
(c) a copy of each order or regulation made under paragraph 4(1)(b) of the Act must be tabled in each House of Parliament;
(d) the Minister must respond to a report submitted by a parliamentary committee that recommends that sanctions be imposed under the Act against a foreign national; and
(e) the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada must provide the Minister with information that is relevant to the making, administering or enforcing of the order or regulation against a foreign national.
It also amends the Special Economic Measures Act to change that Act’s long title to “ An Act to provide for the imposition of economic measures against a person, entity or foreign state for grave breaches of international peace and security, gross and systematic human rights violations or acts of significant corruption ” and its short title to the “ Sergei Magnitsky Global Sanctions Act ”. It further amends that Act to provide that
(a) transnational repression be sanctioned;
(b) visas or other documents must not be issued to immediate family members of a foreign national who is the subject of an order or regulation made under section 4 of the Act;
(c) the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada must provide the Minister with information that is relevant to the making, administering or enforcing of the order or regulation against a foreign state or person;
(d) every order or regulation made under paragraph 4(1)(b) of the Act must be tabled in each House of Parliament; and
(e) the punishment under paragraph 8(a) of the Act be increased.
Finally, it amends the Broadcasting Act to prohibit the issue or renewal of a licence in relation to a broadcasting undertaking, or to revoke the licence of a broadcasting undertaking, that is vulnerable to being significantly influenced by a foreign national or entity that has committed acts or omissions that the Senate or the House of Commons has recognized as genocide or that is the subject of sanctions under the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law) or under the Special Economic Measures Act .‍

Sergei Magnitsky International Anti-Corruption and Human Rights Act

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

moved that Bill C-219, 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 Special Economic Measures Act and the Broadcasting Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank all members of this House for their understanding of the personal situation I am going through right now and for accommodating me tonight by moving up my time slot so we could start the debate on my private member's bill. As most of my colleagues who have been here for a while know, it sometimes takes a long time to get up in the draw and get a private member's bill into debate in the House and into committee so that maybe at the end of the day, it can be successfully adopted, become law and appear in the statutes of Canada.

I am very proud to present my new private member's bill, Bill C-219, the Sergei Magnitsky international anti-corruption and human rights act. I want to thank my seconder from Peterborough—

[Philip Lawrence]

Northumberland—Clarke.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I was close enough. I should have written that down.

The hon. member brought forward a bill in the last Parliament, as I did. In this Parliament, we have stuck them together and expanded on them to deal with corrupt foreign officials and kleptocrats from the many different theocracies and dictatorships. In these regimes, especially Communist regimes, people continue to use their powers and positions of influence to be kleptocrats, be corrupt and commit atrocities against their own people.

This bill would make amendments to the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act and the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, also known as the Sergei Magnitsky Law, which Senator Raynell Andreychuk and I brought in back in 2017 and became law. The bill would also update the Special Economic Measures Act to rename it to the Sergei Magnitsky global sanctions act. It would also amend the Broadcasting Act.

Just so everybody knows who Sergei Magnitsky is, in case they have not been exposed to his story, a gentleman a lot of members might know, Bill Browder, wrote a book called Red Notice. He was American and was the largest foreign investor in Russia until 2005. In 2008, it became evident that kleptocrats in the Kremlin were using his former company to commit tax evasion and tax fraud, so he hired a lawyer and accountant by the name of Sergei Magnitsky, who uncovered the largest tax fraud in Russian history. He was then arrested, detained, tortured and killed. It was a horrific thing that happened. He died in detention in a Russian prison on November 16, 2009.

None of the individuals who were responsible for the fraud, the false accusations and the criminal charges that were brought against him, and none of the individuals who enriched themselves from government coffers through the tax fraud they committed in the name of Bill Browder, were ever sanctioned and brought to justice. We cannot allow Canada or our allies to sit on the sidelines while gross human rights violators and corrupt foreign officials continue to commit atrocities, enrich themselves, abuse their citizens and ultimately walk away. Canada cannot be a safe haven for that.

Parliament started engaging with this back in 2012. Bill Browder, former Russian opposition leader Boris Nemtsov and Vladimir Kara-Murza of the People's Freedom Party were here in Parliament to call on the government of the day to adopt Magnitsky sanctions to protect human rights activists in Russia and make sure that pro-democracy activists around the world were better protected, because we were going to name, shame, sanction and ban those individuals from allied nations.

In 2012, the United States adopted the first Magnitsky legislation. It was followed by the European Parliament in 2013. As we all know, on February 27, 2015, Nemtsov was assassinated just outside the Kremlin, on the bridge right beside it.

In March 2015, here in Canada, both the House and the Senate brought forward resolutions, which were passed unanimously, calling on the government to install Magnitsky sanctions. In 2017, the Sergei Magnitsky Law was adopted unanimously after it was brought forward by Senator Andreychuk in the Senate and me in the House.

Using the name of Sergei Magnitsky in our sanctions regime delivers a strong political message against Putin's brutal dictatorship and his equally corrupt allies. In the bill's preamble, it asks the government to continue to engage with our friends around the world to establish the international anti-corruption court at The Hague. This is something that has been advocated for by Integrity Initiatives International. Canada, the Netherlands and Ecuador issued a statement back in November 2022 to work towards getting it established. I was on a call just last week, and that process continues.

We need to have the international anti-corruption court with the purpose that, if we can arrest and prosecute those corrupt foreign officials, we would be not only reducing the crimes against citizens in those countries, but probably also decreasing the number of crimes against humanity. Before anyone ever becomes a genocidal maniac, they always start off as a corrupt foreign official. First, they get stuff and money out of the treasury and into their own pockets, and then they start abusing their citizens. That is when we see genocides happen, war crimes happen, human rights violated, and political prisoners and people of conscience thrown in jail.

I will go through what this bill would do. First, it would require the Minister of Foreign Affairs to publish an annual report on what the Government of Canada is doing to advance human rights internationally, as well as include the names and the status of prisoners of conscience around the world, especially Canadians who are being held in other countries. This is important, and we now have a definition of what a prisoner of conscience is. I will get into it later.

We would also amend the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, the Sergei Magnitsky Law, and the Special Economic Measures Act, also known as SEMA, so they would better align with each other and the legislation would no longer be in conflict with each other, as well as align ourselves with what our allies are doing.

We would define what transnational repression is and sanction foreign nationals who commit it in Canada and elsewhere. We would ban immediate family members of sanctioned foreign nationals so Canada cannot be used as a safe haven, or as a way to hide their children, their spouse, their concubines and their girlfriends, as we often see, and use them as a way to illegally move their illicit funds into Canada, as well as protect their families from the very people they are abusing back in their own countries. The bill would require the government to table in Parliament the names of foreign nationals and entities that are added to the sanctions list to ensure there is better transparency. We would have that tabled back here in the House so we can look at it as parliamentarians.

It would require the RCMP and FINTRAC to report to the Minister of Foreign Affairs on the making, administrating and enforcing of sanctions. I will get into that a little bit later. It would allow parliamentary committees to recommend names and entities to be sanctioned, and require the minister to report back to the House on that decision, or to the Senate if the committee and the Senate should undertake these studies.

This is an opportunity for those in the diaspora communities across Canada to have direct input into the process of why people should be added to lists, or maybe why they should not. It would also amend the Broadcasting Act to immediately revoke licenses for media outlets that are operated by sanctioned entities, individuals or states that the House or the Senate has recognized as having committed a genocide. Immediately, those states would have all their media banned from the Canadian airwaves.

The definition of transnational repression involves the tactics used by a foreign state to intimidate, harass, surveil or threaten individuals or groups located outside the state borders, or to physically harm such individuals or members of such groups, including elected officials, political dissidents, human rights defenders, exiled journalists, diaspora communities, civil society activists and refugees for the purpose of silencing dissent and stifling activism.

We know the corrupt regimes of the People's Republic of China, the Chinese Communist Party, of Iran and of Russia are doing this in Canada right now. We hear these stories all the time. Just on November 13, the Globe and Mail reported, “CSIS director warns that China and Russia continue to target Canada”. When I meet with diaspora communities, they have story after story of somebody who is tied to the government of their nation, or the embassies and consulates they have located across this country, out there intimidating the families.

In the last election, Joe Tay, who was the Conservative candidate for the riding of Don Valley North, was told by the RCMP and by CSIS not to go out and door knock, because his life was in danger. This was based upon the intelligence they received from other individuals who were informing them about foreign agents working against him. Joe, of course, has celebrity status within the Chinese and Hong Kong community, and as an advocate for Hong Kongers, has now been targeted by both the Hong Kong executive council and the regime in Beijing.

We know the story of the Chinese police stations that were set up all across Canada to intimidate Chinese Canadians to ensure that they were not doing things China was not in favour of.

We have a very small Uyghur community in Canada; I had a number of them in my office just last week. One young woman told me that she came to Canada and started to speak out against the genocide and atrocities being committed against the Uyghur people, such as forced labour camps, sterilization and reprogramming, which is the brainwashing of children, taking away their faith and their language. The woman has a very sick mother, who is still in China, and she is being denied treatment because of her daughter's activities here in Canada in fighting for human rights and freedom.

I was in Halifax at the International Security Forum this past weekend, and I was talking to the executive director of the World Uyghur Congress. She said that she started speaking out against the Chinese government and the Communist regime in Beijing, and her sister was arrested in 2018. She has had no contact with her for the entire seven years.

We always have the Falun Gong practitioners and their activism; their families are also being targeted. We have the Hong Kong Watch patrons.

We also know about the Iranian community here and how it is being targeted by agents of the theocracy in Tehran. They are also driving around with police cars that are painted up just like the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

The one thing that we are going to require is for the minister to publish this report once a year on what they are doing on prisoners of conscience and on human rights activities. A prisoner of conscience is an individual who, in contravention of international human rights standards, has been detained or otherwise physically restricted solely because of their identity or their conscientiously held beliefs, including religious or political beliefs.

Again, we have heard from many different diaspora communities and families of prisoners of conscience that this is happening. Jimmy Lai is another one we hear about. He is a media mogul; he is 77 years old. He went through a show trial that lasted for months on end, and he has been held in solitary confinement for over 1,700 days without access to his medications. His health is failing, and he is being held there because he is an advocate for democracy within Hong Kong. Of course, they will not have any part of that in Beijing or in Hong Kong through the executive council.

Vladimir Kara-Murza, who is a supporter of this bill and has been here before, has been targeted and poisoned twice by Russian agents. He was left in a coma at one time, and then he was imprisoned recently, in 2022, because he criticized Putin and his war machine for invading Ukraine. He stood on the side of Ukraine, and he was arrested and held. Luckily, through a prisoner swap, he was able to get out and is now free again. He told me that the only thing that works is public attention. If it wasn't for public attention, he says he would be dead in Siberia now.

We kept on talking about Vladimir Kara-Murza. The House passed a unanimous motion, brought forward by my friend from Calgary, the current Deputy Speaker. He brought it forward to give honorary citizenship to Vladimir Kara-Murza. Because of that, he is free today, and it is the same for the two Michaels. When we can shine the spotlight on this type of corruption, these atrocities and human rights abuses, people go free and democracy, human rights and liberty are better served.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for introducing this bill. My personal view is that it is really important that Canada has a sanctions regime that allows us to not only uphold human rights, but also enforce the international rules-based order. That is not just the right thing for countries around the world to do; it is essential to protecting Canada's security and sovereignty.

Based on discussions I have had with colleagues and folks outside of this House, many folks have ideas or thoughts about how the bill could be further improved to further strengthen our sanctions regime. Is the member open to working with members of other parties in this House to amend the bill to make it even stronger and more effective?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, yes, I am always open to ways to make legislation stronger. I have already had a conversation with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs on ways we can strengthen the bill. I am always open to anything we can do to make it better.

There is one thing I never got to in my speech. My friend from Etobicoke Centre and I are very active with our Ukrainian communities. We want to make sure that any frozen assets, and I am thinking about Russian frozen assets, are forfeited in a reasonable amount of time for the benefit of Ukraine or any other victims, as with the shooting down of PS752 and the Iranian families that are still waiting for justice. When we think about the big Antonov plane that has been sitting at the end of the Pearson runway for the last two years, this bill would make it so the minister has to act within 12 months to forfeit assets and make sure the financial benefits are given to the victims of the aggressor.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his bill and his very interesting speech, and I am pleased to know that he is willing to work together to improve his bill.

I know that one aspect was particularly important to my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean, namely the fact that the bill introduces the concept of transnational repression. The Bloc Québécois had been calling for this.

However, we do have some concerns. One thing that comes to mind is the request to publish the names and status of political prisoners, which could evidently have an impact on their immediate family members for a number of reasons. I would like my colleague to talk about that aspect.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, we are going to work with all members of this House to make sure we are not putting at risk anyone who is in a delicate situation. However, from what I am hearing from those who have been political prisoners, like Michael Kovrig and Vladimir Kara-Murza, it is the extra spotlight shined through the media and through statements made in this House and elsewhere that puts the governments holding these people falsely in a very uncomfortable position.

I know there are sensitivities around some prisoners of conscience and some families. We definitely do not want in any way, shape or form to disrupt any negotiations and discussions taking place that will result in their safe release.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this bill is clearly based on very commendable and noble ideas. Furthermore, we truly believe there are some elements that are interesting enough to warrant closer examination, but certain details still need to be worked out.

This idea seems to be inspired by the Americans and directly drawn from the 1990s. We know that when the Americans tightened sanctions against several countries, in the name of fighting corruption, for example, that was accompanied by the extraterritoriality of law, meaning that the Americans forced sovereign nations and companies in other countries not to do business with countries that the United States wanted to boycott.

Is my colleague concerned that with such a bill, Canada would be replicating this form of imperialism to some extent?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would just say that this is not about trying to force other governments to change their regimes. This is about changing the behaviour of individuals. This is about going after those who ultimately go and rob from the people they are supposed to be serving and then commit atrocities against them. We want to make sure that they are held to account. If we do not do that, they will turn into even worse criminals, worse human rights abusers and, ultimately, monsters.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured today to speak to Canada's active efforts to advance human rights; combat corruption, including through the use of sanctions; and continue to explore the possibilities of the bill.

Canada is committed to upholding the legacy left by Sergei Magnitsky in establishing a global framework to combat corruption and human rights violations. Whether by holding states accountable for violations, championing the rights of women and girls, indigenous peoples and vulnerable groups or by countering the threat of transnational repression, human rights remain at the core of our Canadian identity. These are values that are central to our foreign policy, as articulated by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. They are foundational and necessary for a secure society and to make a society prosperous.

I want to begin by thanking the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman for presenting this private member's bill, Bill C-219. The bill underscores a common objective that we share in the House, which is to work together to promote and protect human rights internationally and to modernize how Canada enacts sanctions.

I also want to acknowledge the work of the member for Northumberland—Clarke, who introduced a similar bill in the previous Parliament. Like its predecessor, Bill C‑219 highlights the important ways in which Canada protects international human rights.

Bill C-219, at its core, seeks to amend four laws, the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act; the Special Economic Measures Act, known as SEMA; the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, or the Magnitsky law; and the Broadcasting Act.

Bill C-219 is very well intentioned and includes important measures to modernize our approach. However, some provisions, as currently drafted, could inadvertently undermine individual or public safety and hinder the effectiveness of sanctions. We believe that the foreign affairs committee is absolutely necessary and is the right place to delve into this piece of legislation to make sure that it mirrors Canadian values and the objectives that we all share in the House regarding human rights and the protection of individuals and society.

I will summarize some of the key elements of the bill and identify areas where consideration in committee could add some important and significant value. While the government plays a central role in the protection of human rights, as governments around the world do, we are not alone in these efforts. Day after day, human rights defenders, activists, journalists, lawyers, community leaders and everyday citizens are the backbone of accountability and progress. Their insights, their lived experiences and their grassroots connections strengthen policy and democratic institutions around the world. Supporting them is not optional. It is an imperative. We need to especially stand by them when they are in peril.

“Voices at Risk: Canada's Guidelines on Supporting Human Rights Defenders” reflects the government's commitment to supporting their essential and courageous work. Canadian officials abroad adapt these guidelines to the local context and specific needs of each individual and each case. They do so to provide the most effective support and defence possible, often in close collaboration with our partners.

When a human rights defender who is at risk is a Canadian, regardless of whether they are a dual citizen, Canada considers this to be a consular case. These cases are monitored closely by Canadian officials providing consular assistance on a, usually, daily basis. This is part of the Vienna Convention.

While the bill seeks to protect human rights defenders, we have concerns that some of the specific elements could put the safety and security of human rights defenders, including Canadian citizens, at risk. I know that the safety and security of these defenders are paramount to all of us in the House, and I look forward to exploring these issues in greater detail at committee.

The government recognizes and values Parliament's role not only in studying sanctions but also furthering our sanctions regime, the tools to protect human rights and the tools to take on corruption and other crises.

The passage of a Senate public bill, Bill S-226, in 2017, was one example of Parliament's working to improve our sanctions regime as a response to human rights violations and acts of significant corruption. Two reports, tabled in the Senate and in the House in 2023 and 2024, respectively, showed how significant our work in this House is to make sure that government is responsive to the desires, the will and the aspirations of Canadians.

Sanctions are a key component in Canada's approach to protecting the rules-based order and in advancing human rights. Recently, we have seen the use of sanctions increase significantly as conflicts escalate in nature, such as in the case of Ukraine. Canada has sanctioned nearly 2,300 individuals and over 1,000 entities or vessels since 2022. It is an exponential increase in the number of sanctions that we have been doing. However, at the same time, we want to constantly re-examine our sanctions regime to make sure it is fit for purpose.

Our government remains firmly committed to ensuring that Canada plays a leading role in preserving and strengthening a rules-based international order. Sanctions are a critical tool for advancing this approach.

However, as I said, we need to update the sanctions tool box. I am very pleased that the member has added the concept of transnational repression, and I reflect on the fact that the Bloc Québécois has also seen this as an important new trigger for sanctions. We respectfully accept this and think it is an important addition.

However, we think the bill can be strengthened by adding some other triggers, such as migrant smuggling, foreign interference, cyber- and hybrid attacks, organized crime, undermining democracy and arbitrary detention. These are things that should also trigger the use of sanctions, as well as transnational repression.

I want to underscore that in all of this, we need to be evidence-based and thoughtful as we push on the sanctions to make them effective. We do not want to add cost to the system. We want to ensure that we find an effective way that is both profound and important, to ensure that the Canadian taxpayer is able to stand up and say, “These are dollars that are being well spent.” Therefore, I challenge the committee as well to look at the bill from that lens to ensure that we have an effective use of Canadian dollars as we promote human rights and as we defend our world against corruption. Transparency, accountability, parliamentary engagement, inter-agency co-operation and information are all things that could add costs but that could also be very effective and could be part of a tool box that would both be effective and save taxpayer money.

One section of the bill that, very frankly, I am less familiar with, because it is not in my wheelhouse, is the Broadcasting Act section. However, I understand, as we all do, that media is critical and important in the promotion of human rights. The broadcasting-related provision of Bill C-219 seeks to curtail the proliferation of broadcast content from licensed broadcasters found to be susceptible to influence from foreign actors, foreign persons or foreign entities, especially ones who have committed genocide or are under Canadian sanctions. This is something we all agree on. However, we want to test all the recommendations in the bill, which would become law, to ensure that they would actually accomplish this while preserving the freedom of the press.

In conclusion, we are eager for further debate on Bill C-219. We are ready to take it to committee. We want to support the member in his aspirations to look at the bill, but we also challenge and commend the committee to do its due diligence on the bill, to find out the way a parliamentary committee can make it more effective, to make it better to defend human rights and better to fight corruption, and to make it effective and sustainable to attack not only today's issues, but tomorrow's issues. This would be a piece of legislation that will last, so we want to make sure it is fit for purpose not only for today, but also for tomorrow.

Again, I want to thank the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman for his ongoing co-operation and conversation about the bill. I look forward to getting it to committee and having all members of the House, through their committee, be sure to make it the most effective bill possible.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am really pleased to be able to give this speech this evening because what I have to say is very important to me.

Since the new Parliament began, many of my colleagues in the House will certainly have noticed, as I have, that the importance of parliamentary and committee work seems of little interest to the Prime Minister of Canada. He seems far too busy meeting with leaders of what I would call dubious countries, to put it politely, including China, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

In the meantime, parliamentarians are working hard in committee to improve bills or collaborate on drafting reports and recommendations, often involving complex files, based on testimony that is frequently heart-wrenching or hard to hear. On this point, I am thinking more specifically of the colleagues I have the honour to serve with on the Subcommittee on International Human Rights or my friends on the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, with whom I recently studied Bill C-3 on lost Canadians, and whose amendments, though supported by the majority of committee members, were defeated once they arrived in the House.

Today, I feel I must highlight the importance of the work carried out by parliamentarians in committee. I know that this aspect of our work requires thoroughness, precision and, above all, a willingness to collaborate and improve things. Unfortunately, as we know, committee proceedings are not the most exciting thing to watch on television. However, committees are where the most important work is done for the future. Committee work has a concrete impact on people's lives.

Unfortunately, as I said at the outset, I do not believe that this government fully understands the legislative implications or the scope of the work involved. Without wanting to make puns like my Conservative friends do, who cares about committee work? That is probably what the Prime Minister would say. I say this because, while the bill before us today incorporates several aspects of Bill C‑281, some elements are quite different.

Bill C-219 was introduced by our Conservative colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman. I would like to send him my thoughts because he is an extraordinary person and a pleasure to work with, and he is going through some difficult times these days. Bill C-219 is similar in some ways to Bill C-281, which died on the Order Paper in the Senate after receiving unanimous support in the House of Commons at third reading, including support from the Bloc Québécois.

As I was saying, Bill C-219 incorporates some aspects of Bill C-281, but with a few significant differences. Committee work will therefore be essential—as I think my Liberal colleagues have said—to verify the scope and impact of the bill and to propose amendments as necessary. More specifically, as my colleague from Jonquière mentioned in a question earlier, I am thinking that the request to publish the names and status of political prisoners may not sit well with immediate family members for a number of obvious reasons. For example, a family could be afraid of reprisals from the country in question and could be totally opposed to making the information publicly available. This point was raised by the Bloc Québécois during the study of Bill C-281.

The bill also introduces the concept of transnational repression, a request that was also made by the Bloc Québécois. We even included it in our election platform. I would like to thank my colleague, the sponsor of the bill, for including this concept in his bill. It is extremely important and it is certainly very timely. The world is changing at breakneck speed, and transnational repression is happening here, in Quebec and Canada. My Uyghur friends, my Tibetan friends, my friends from Taiwan, my friends from Hong Kong will attest to that. It is pretty obvious. In that sense, what would this bill actually do?

Bill C‑219 amends several laws, including the Sergei Magnitsky Law, to provide that “transnational repression be sanctioned”, which is very positive, and that “visas or other documents must not be issued to immediate family members of a foreign national who is the subject of an order or regulation”. The enactment amends the Special Economic Measures Act to change that act's long title and shorten it to the “Sergei Magnitsky Global Sanctions Act”. Mr. Magnitsky wound up in a Moscow prison where he was tortured for 358 days for alleged tax evasion. He succumbed to untreated pancreatitis in a grim way in 2009 at the age of 38.

The bill proposes a definition of “prisoner of conscience”. It reads as follows:

an individual who, in contravention of international human rights standards, has been detained or otherwise physically restricted solely because of their identity or their conscientiously held beliefs, including religious or political beliefs.

As I said earlier, the bill also adds a definition for transnational repression. I want to reiterate that this was a Bloc Québécois proposal made during the last election campaign. Since we have fewer members that can introduce bills, we appreciate when our colleagues incorporate our ideas into theirs.

The bill defines “transnational repression” as follows:

tactics used by a foreign state to intimidate, harass, surveil or threaten individuals or groups located outside the state borders or physically harm such individuals or members of such groups, including elected officials, political dissidents, human rights defenders, exiled journalists, diaspora communities, civil society activists and refugees, for the purpose of silencing dissent and stifling activism.

As I speak these words in the House, I am thinking of several members of various communities who, here in this very place, day after day, week after week, bear the burden of foreign repression, of transnational repression. They are human rights defenders, refugees and civil society activists. These people, who were once acquaintances, have now become friends. I do not want to identify them by name, but I know for a fact that they know who they are. I am thinking of people who care deeply about democracy and justice and who, simply because they believe in a better future for their loved ones, are subjected to intimidation, harassment, threats and even imprisonment and torture.

I am thinking of people like Jimmy Lai, a human rights defender who has become a prominent figure in the fight for freedom and democracy. Right now, Mr. Lai, who is 77 years old, is languishing in appalling conditions in a Hong Kong prison. His crime was that he supported journalism and freedom of the press. Obviously, my thoughts are with his son, Sebastien, to whom I once again express my solidarity.

Repression can be insidious, so insidious that it can be hard to see at times. Anyone who encourages repression must be held accountable for their actions. Bill S‑219 therefore adds something to the legislation. It adds the fact that sanctions can be imposed in cases of transnational repression. The bill would also force the minister to respond to a parliamentary motion calling for sanctions against a corrupt foreign leader.

This means that I, along with my Bloc Québécois colleagues, will support Bill C‑219 introduced by my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman. While the provisions of the Sergei Magnitsky Law and the Special Economic Measures Act both allow for targeted sanctions, only the Special Economic Measures Act is currently used for this purpose. The Sergei Magnitsky Law has not been used to implement targeted sanctions since 2018. My colleague's bill also helps reignite discussions on this subject, which I think is extremely positive.

I will conclude my speech by commending my colleague's work and confirming that the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑219, which will, however, have to be studied in committee. We will be thorough and we will collaborate, as usual. I am more than ready to work with my colleagues. This bill is likely to be studied by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, of which I am a member. We will be there. I believe this is a bill that can truly make a difference and have a real impact on people who are fighting for the freedom of their loved ones.

I am very pleased to have had the opportunity to deliver this speech tonight.

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Madam Speaker, from my days as an adviser for the Harper government to today, I have had the privilege of working alongside the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman on several files, observing first-hand his steadfast commitment to human rights, accountability and the rule of law. Throughout his career, he has consistently demonstrated a deep understanding of international affairs, a tireless work ethic and a principled approach to defending Canadian values. I have seen it up front as we walked the cobblestone streets of Kyiv amid jubilant protesters, and then later amid burned buildings and the same stones ripped from the ground in self-defence.

He does not act for political convenience; he acts with clarity, conviction and a sense of responsibility to Canadians and those whose freedoms are imperilled. To stand with him on this legislation not only recognizes the urgency of the issue before us, but also honours the dedication and leadership he brings before this House. He has championed measures to protect Canadians and to confront the very real threat posed by authoritarian regimes that seek to project their influence into our own communities. This bill would enable the Canadian government to confront, in addition to human rights abusers, dictator corruption and transnational repression.

Across our country, people who have fled persecution and violence rightly expect to be safe. They expect their homes to be sanctuaries, free from the nightmare of the dictator they now deny, yet reports show that authoritarian regimes are following their citizens into Canada to intimidate, to coerce and to silence them. This is real; it is ongoing.

Current laws have not kept up with the tactics of these regimes. Bill C-219 provides clarity, accountability and enforcement mechanisms. It would prevent Canada from being used as a safe haven by individuals responsible for corruption and human rights abuses.

Let me cover three parts of this issue in my remarks: the context, why this legislation is critical and our duty as parliamentarians.

Sergei Magnitsky was tortured to death for exposing Kremlin corruption and, from his grave, gave the free world its most potent weapon against the new authoritarians: targeted sanctions that strike the torturers, the kleptocrats and their enablers where it hurts most, their bank accounts and their visas.

Today, the long arm of Beijing, Tehran, Moscow and their proxies reach into Canada itself. There are death threats, bounties, covert police stations and intimidation of dissidents, all on our soil. This is not mere crime; this is transnational repression, the export of tyranny into the heart of the free world.

Thanks to the persistence over a decade by the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, we already had established human rights violations as Magnitsky powers almost a decade ago. We must now sharpen them into a dedicated tool to confront transnational repression with swift, automatic and merciless consequences for any regime that dares hunt its critics on Canadian streets.

In the Cold War, we drew a line and said “not one inch further”. Today, we must say the same. Canada will never be a hunting ground for dictators. We will find them, we will freeze their assets and we will make them pay.

Magnitsky's story is not simply a tale of courage; it is a reminder that one person armed with the truth can expose an entire system of lies. His murder was meant to frighten others into silence, but instead it triggered an international movement that forced democracies to confront a hard question about themselves: Do we still believe in moral consequence, or are we willing to let power excuse anything?

That is what makes today's debate more than a matter of policy. It is a statement about who Canadians choose to be in an age when authoritarian regimes think the world has grown too tired, too distracted or too divided to stand up to them. Our answer must be calm, clear and confident. Canada will not retreat from its role as a defender of those who risk everything to speak truth in countries where truth is treated as a crime.

We cannot talk about this without talking about the world we now live in, a world in which authoritarians are emboldened by new technologies. What once required secret agents crossing borders now only requires a phone, a television, a consulate or a proxy group operating quietly in our communities. Transnational repression is not abstract theory. It is happening in cities across the country, and it targets the people who trusted Canada to give them what their homelands denied them: safety, a voice and freedom.

If authoritarian states can reach into our cities to intimidate their critics, then we no longer control the space we claim as our own. That is why the response cannot be symbolic or slow; it must be predictable enough that dictators understand the cost before they act and swift enough that victims understand they are not alone.

Renaming the Special Economic Measures Act to the Sergei Magnitsky global sanctions act is part of that clarity. There is power in naming something after a man who died telling the truth. It signals that the purpose of the law is not hidden behind technical language or bureaucratic jargon; it is a law built around a moral line that should never have been blurred. The name teaches every Canadian what the law stands for and tells every authoritarian what it means when Canada acts.

The Cold War had a clarity that many in our era have forgotten. It drew a line between the world of fear and the world of freedom. Today the battle lines are not marked on maps, but they are just as real. They run through the phones of dissidents who receive threats at midnight. They run through the inboxes of activists who are told their families back home will suffer. They run through the hearts of communities of people who came to Canada believing they had escaped the regime, only to find that the regime had followed them here.

If we do not draw a line now, we teach these regimes that Canada can be bent, that our values can be shaped by intimidation, and that our borders are something they can violate. This is why we strengthen Magnitsky powers. This is why we direct them at transnational repression. This is why we sharpen the law into something that cannot be evaded with excuses or hidden behind diplomatic language.

Magnitsky's legacy is not only about his death; it is about the world that responded to it. Democracies came together because they recognized that a system that allows corruption, torture and murder to flourish unchallenged is a system that eventually threatens us all. The legislation before the House carries that same spirit; it connects the struggle of one man in a Moscow prison to the safety of a Canadian family in Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary or Montreal.

When we act, we are not only honouring Magnitsky's courage but also reminding the world that Canada is not passive in the face of cruelty. We are reminding people who fled oppression that this country takes their safety seriously, and we are reminding people who inflict oppression that they will face consequences even if they believe their borders protect them. This is the heart of the legislation: a line drawn clearly, without drama and without hesitation, a country's stating that its sovereignty is not for negotiation and its people are not for intimidation.

Transnational repression is a direct threat to the safety and dignity of people living here in Canada. It is carried out by regimes in Beijing, the Kremlin, Tehran and beyond. Our intelligence community documents that these governments have conducted operations across Canada, including intimidation; surveillance; harassment of activists, students and journalists; and persecution of diaspora communities. Whether people are Sikh, Hindu, Christian, Muslim or Jew, and whether they come from Hong Kong, the Donbass, Tibet or East Turkestan, or are among the Iranians who stand against their regime, all who come here to live in freedom now must contend with the designs of the dictators they fled.

Immediate family members of the very people we have sanctioned have lived in luxury in Canada while their relatives engage in corruption, theft or violent repression abroad. The tragedy of flight PS752 is a stark example. Families of the victims have waited years for compensation, despite frozen regime assets that could have been used to provide justice.

Russian assets could and should be directed to supporting Ukraine in its defence. Frozen funds should contribute to justice and accountability for people whose war for existence is waged this very day.

When foreign governments intimidate or threaten individuals on Canadian soil, it is not only a violation of the rights of the people affected but also a test of the strength of our laws and our institutions. Bill C-219 would ensure that Canada responds firmly, transparently and consistently. To people who have sought refuge in Canada, to those who live in fear of foreign regimes, and to Canadians who expect their government to defend their sovereignty, the bill would deliver clarity, protection and accountability.

It is now the responsibility of the House to act. Support for Bill C-219 is support for the rule of law, for victims of oppression and for Canada as a safe and principled country. May the bill not be a partisan one but pass as a parliamentary one instead.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this bill.

For generations, people around the world have looked at Canada as a champion of human rights, of democratic values and of the international rules-based order. These principles define who we are as Canadians, but they also help keep us safe. They protect our sovereignty and security, and they shape how we engage with the world.

Today, as we consider Bill C-219, we are examining how Canada can continue to confront authoritarian aggression, defend human rights and protect those who are targeted by oppressive regimes, whether they live abroad or within our own borders here in Canada.

We are having this debate at a time when the global landscape has changed dramatically. Russia's unjust and illegal war on Ukraine is one of the clearest examples of why effective modern sanctions tools are so important. Throughout the brutal invasion, Russia is attempting to eliminate Ukraine as a sovereign nation. The invasion has been marked by mass atrocities, forced deportations of Ukrainian children to Russia, political repression, transnational intimidation of diaspora communities here at home, deliberate destruction of Ukraine's culture and identity, and more.

Canada has responded by deploying one of the strongest sanction regimes in the world to hold those who are responsible accountable. Canada has responded with concrete action, not just with sanctions, but with military, financial and humanitarian support to Ukraine to help Ukraine defend itself and help hold Russia accountable.

Since 2022, Canada has committed over $22 billion in support for Ukraine. I want to outline some of the support we have provided, because I think it is really important.

We have provided about $6.5 billion in military assistance. This includes air defence missiles, M777 howitzers, Leopard 2 tanks, drones, armoured vehicles and other critical equipment.

Canada's military training mission, Operation Unifier, has trained more than 44,000 Ukrainian soldiers, and over 300 Canadian Armed Forces members remain deployed in support of this mission. When I think about 44,000 Ukrainians who have been trained and prepared to fight to defend their country by Canada, it makes me proud. Canada has also committed $389 million to train Ukrainian F-16 fighter pilots and more than $140 million to support Ukraine's domestic drone production.

On the financial side, Canada has provided over $12.4 billion in direct financial assistance, which is the highest contribution of financial aid per capita of any country in the world. This includes more than $6.75 billion in loans through the IMF, $500 million in direct bilateral loans, Canada's $5-billion contribution to the G7's new extraordinary revenue acceleration loans for Ukraine and much more. Canada has also played a leadership role in strengthening Ukraine's economy and long-term resilience, including with the modernization and parliamentary ratification of the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement.

These are some of the things we have done to support the people of Ukraine since 2022. It is not an exhaustive list, but my point is that Canada is a global leader in supporting Ukraine on a number of fronts, with financial, military and humanitarian aid, diplomatic support and a whole range of measures.

There are also sanctions. Since 2022, Canada has sanctioned nearly 2,300 people and more than 1,000 entities in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. In total, about 4,900 people and entities are currently sanctioned under Canada's autonomous sanctions laws. These actions matter; they really do. They restrict financial networks, freeze assets and signal that Canada will not tolerate violations of international law. They also impose consequences on those who violate human rights and the international rules-based order that protects countries around the world and protects Canada's sovereignty and security.

I outline this because it shows the scale of the challenge before us and the importance of sanctions as one of the tools in Canada's response to authoritarian aggression of any kind. Bill C-219 speaks directly to this. Its intent, I believe, is to strengthen Canada's sanctions framework, improve accountability and modernize the tools we use to confront human rights abuses and authoritarian influence.

I want to acknowledge the sponsor of the bill for bringing these important issues forward. There is much in this bill that I believe deserves careful consideration.

Bill C-219 proposes some important and necessary changes that I believe are important for Canada to make. The bill proposes adding transnational repression, for example, as a trigger for sanctions under both the Special Economic Measures Act and the Magnitsky act. This is increasingly important. Around the world we see regimes harassing, threatening or even attacking dissidents living abroad, including here in Canada. Russia, Iran, China and others are using these tactics to intimidate communities, suppress free expression and extend their reach beyond their borders. Canada must have the tools to respond decisively.

I believe there are ways that Bill C-219 could go even further on transnational repression by broadening the scope of this provision to include additional triggers. The bill suggests that it would strengthen enforcement by increasing penalties for sanction violations and improving information sharing between the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the RCMP and FINTRAC. On its face, these would be constructive steps that I believe align with Canada's intention to combat corruption, cut off illicit funding flows and protect the integrity of our democratic institutions.

The bill would update the long and short titles under the Special Economic Measures Act to better reflect the seriousness of the threats we face. These changes bring greater coherence to our legal framework and mirror developments in the approaches taken by many of our allies. These elements reflect good intention and respond to some very important global challenges.

There are, however, important concerns that some folks have, that some of my colleagues have and that I have with what is proposed in Bill C-219. It is our duty as parliamentarians, every time a bill is brought forward, to examine carefully whether every aspect of the bill is workable and responsible. There are elements in the bill that, as currently drafted, may undermine public safety or hinder the effectiveness of the very sanctions on regimes that the bill seeks to strengthen.

First, the requirement for the Minister of Foreign Affairs to publish a detailed public list of what are called “prisoners of conscience”, including the number of access requests and foreign responses, raises some important risks that we really need to consider. Publicizing sensitive information about detained individuals could jeopardize diplomatic efforts to secure their release. Many governments that arbitrarily detain dissidents retaliate on those people when information becomes public or when those governments are publicly shamed. I do understand the intent behind this provision. However, I hope that, through working with colleagues and all parties across the House, we can achieve a result that shines a spotlight on important cases while protecting the safety of the human rights defenders and Canada's ongoing work to secure their release through various channels. I look forward to continuing this work and these conversations with colleagues in the months ahead.

The bill would also place new operational requirements on the RCMP and FINTRAC. From my perspective, it is important that we reflect on this and examine it. Before we impose new duties, it is important we make sure that these things are actually feasible, that they are executable and implementable, and that they do not compromise existing enforcement requirements or responsibilities. Several provisions would impose rigid procedural timelines or require actions that do not align with the machinery of how government works today or with ministerial authorities. These issues are fixable, but it is important that we reflect on them. They may require amendments to ensure that the bill is practical, enforceable and consistent with our existing laws and statutory requirements.

Additionally, on the proposed changes to the Broadcasting Act intended to prevent foreign influence from sanctioned states, we have to be careful that the language is drafted carefully to avoid thresholds or unintended impacts on media freedom and have the bill achieve what the member is trying to achieve, the intent of which I, of course, support.

None of the concerns I have raised detract from the core purpose of the bill. In fact, they reinforce the importance of getting this right, and that is what I want to do. The global context makes modernization of sanctions important, but getting it right through our work in committee and working with all parliamentarians to make the necessary amendments is critical.

Let me be clear: I support the intent of the bill. I think we support the intent of the bill. We support strengthening sanctions, improving accountability and standing firmly with those who are targeted by oppression, whether they are in Ukraine or anywhere else in the world. However, we have to ensure that the bill achieves its goals without endangering prisoners, putting in place requirements on enforcement agencies that cannot be executed or creating legal frameworks that do not work in practice. At the end of the day, we want this to be effective, and we want it to work. That is what I would like to achieve.

The next stage of committee study will allow MPs to examine each provision in detail, to hear from experts and to reflect on how we can improve the bill. I am looking forward to that and to working with the member opposite and all colleagues in the House to make our sanctions regime even stronger so we can continue to protect human rights and protect our security and the safety of Canadians.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

The House resumed from November 26, 2025, consideration of the motion that Bill C‑219, 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 Special Economic Measures Act and the Broadcasting Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I could summarize my speech by saying yes, but also no, and sitting back down. However, I will try to go a bit further.

Yes, we intend to support Bill C‑219. This bill is, in fact, a repeat, if I may say so, of former Bill C‑281, which died on the order paper in the Senate when Parliament was dissolved last year. However, it had previously received unanimous support here in the House of Commons at third reading. It is no surprise that we are announcing that we will support Bill C‑219.

That being said, there are a few small changes that were made to this bill and that are worth studying in committee, perhaps even amended. That is why I am saying yes but also no. I am saying no to it as a whole, but yes to studying it in committee.

Bill C-219 proposes some key principles on which we cannot disagree, particularly when it comes to cracking down on states that abuse their power over political prisoners. Much has been said about the law that underpins all of these discussions, the Sergei Magnitsky law. Sergei Magnitsky, whom I would actually like to commend, was a Russian lawyer who was arrested for exposing fraud committed by Russian authorities. He was sent to prison where he died the following year. Three years after his death, a trial was held and he was found guilty of fraud. We cannot make this stuff up. This type of abuse is outrageous. It has been recognized pretty much everywhere around the world as an unacceptable and irregular deviation from the rule of law.

The United States passed a bill and implemented a law that covers this type of situation. Canada did the same in 2017. We agree on that. Bill C-219 revises these provisions, which, again, is not necessarily a bad thing, but we have to be careful.

For example, it has been proposed that the names and status of political prisoners be published. For someone like Mr. Magnitsky, whom I just mentioned, who is imprisoned, his name and status could be disclosed, which might seem valid in many respects, but the problem is that those states that abuse their power tend to crack down on the families of individuals instead. For example, if a state takes action against one of its citizens in a way that is considered completely abusive, would we want that individual's family to be harassed or pressured? I think that would be a bad idea.

We will have to look at this carefully in committee. The Bloc Québécois believes that in some cases it may be valid and in others it may not. However, before deciding whether or not to release the identities of political prisoners, we should first obtain the prior consent of their families. As the bill is currently worded, this information would be released unless the family objects. We think the opposite should happen. We should not wait for an objection. Before releasing the names of political prisoners, we should obtain permission from their immediate family. I think it would be wise to proceed in this manner, but this is the type of discussion that we will obviously have in committee.

There is also the issue of varying definitions. The bill seeks to define transnational repression. That may seem obvious but, in reality, it may not be. I think we will have to look at that carefully.

Here is the definition of transnational repression that appears in the bill: tactics used by a foreign state to intimidate, harass, surveil or threaten individuals or groups located outside the state borders or physically harm such individuals or members of such groups, including elected officials, political dissidents, human rights defenders, exiled journalists, diaspora communities, civil society activists and refugees, for the purpose of silencing dissent and stifling activism.‍

This definition seems to be quite broad, but it is worth asking whether it covers everything. I am not sure. Is what it does cover actually useful? I am not sure about that either. We will have to look at it carefully. I think this is indeed the kind of bill where we need to hear from experts. We need guidance from people who are familiar with this type of situation and who can ensure that we are making the right decisions and taking action where needed.

There is also the matter of defining what a prisoner of conscience is in the bill. It refers to “an individual who, in contravention of international human rights standards, has been detained or otherwise physically restricted solely because of their identity or their conscientiously held beliefs, including religious or political beliefs.” This too may seem exhaustive, but it deserves our consideration. We need to look carefully at whether we are really achieving the objective we want to achieve with this bill. Should the definition be broadened? Should it be narrowed or clarified? For example, when we talk about beliefs, perhaps we should define what beliefs are.

We had some tough debates on this issue during the last Parliament, and I think it deserves careful consideration. I am not talking about paying close attention to lobbyists. It is important to hear from them because they will provide insight, but as a legislator, I need to hear the opinions of experts, people who know about these issues. These could be lawyers who deal with these situations or retired judges who have worked on these issues in these states. I think it will be important to do that. We would be remiss if we did not.

Another proposed change in Bill C-219 that strikes me as somewhat questionable is a name change. Name changes are usually fairly straightforward. They appear uncomplicated and we usually approve them without too much discussion, but in this case, the name change could lead to confusion. We are talking about the Special Economic Measures Act. That is its current name. The bill proposes to change the name to “An Act to provide for the imposition of economic measures against a person, entity or foreign state for grave breaches of international peace and security, gross and systematic human rights violations or acts of significant corruption”.

That is a bit of a complicated title. In fact, the proposed short title is the Sergei Magnitsky international anti-corruption and human rights act. The long title is far too long and far too complicated. It will hardly ever be used. I would be very surprised to hear a lawyer stand up in court, address the judge and spend three minutes naming the law. The long name becomes useless at that point. People will use the short title instead. However, there is already a law called the Sergei Magnitsky law. What will happen when people refer to a law that bears the same name as another law? That would cause confusion and we would be no better off. I think that, too, will have to be examined in committee.

I will dispense with the details of the bill as a whole. It is interesting. It includes sanctions for renewing licences for companies that are influenced by foreign entities that are engaged in repression. There are many things we want to keep, but as I just said, there are parts of this bill that we will have to review in committee.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we are discussing this important piece of human rights legislation on the fourth anniversary of the beginning of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Four years ago at this time, in my household, we were celebrating the arrival of my now four-year-old son, Augustine. Three days after his birth, we began to see the terrible images and hear stories of carnage, death and widespread destruction. The joy we felt at the birth of a new child contrasted sharply with the agony of fathers and mothers in Ukraine who had children taken away from them in the prime of life. This brutal war was the choice of one man, Vladimir Putin, a choice that he made with wilful disregard for the lives of the Ukrainian people and the Russian people alike.

While welcoming a new child into my family, I thought about the many parents who would never see their children again because of that evil decision. I also think about the many Ukrainian parents whose children have been abducted from occupied territories by the Russian government. The reality of systematic child abduction by the occupiers underlines that this war of aggression is not just about stealing territory; it is about stealing people. It is about ripping children from their parents and severing their filial connection to their people and their heritage.

In response to these events, we must do everything we can to strengthen Ukraine's position for fighting and its position for negotiating. These objectives are one and the same. Whether Ukraine is defending itself on the battlefield or at the negotiating table, a stronger Ukraine will lead to a more just outcome. A stronger Ukraine will force Russia to stop making absurd maximalist demands and to actually get serious about ending the war. Russia chose this war. It can choose to end it. Ukrainian strength will ultimately force that change of position.

As part of supporting Ukraine, Canada must do more to close sanction loopholes and prevent the Russian government from using international exchange to fuel its aggressive war. I therefore repeat my long-standing call on the government to close the sanction waivers on Russian titanium that it created and to put more pressure on Russia's strategic partners around the world, China and India, among others. The Canadian government has repeatedly granted sanction waivers that have assisted the Russian government and the Russian army. In particular, the titanium sanction waivers the Liberals gave to Russia must be removed right away.

From time to time, I hear questions or feedback from people about the amount of money the Ukraine war is costing. It is my view that strong support for Ukraine and tough sanctioning of the aggressor right from the outset, indeed immediately after the initial invasion began in 2014, would have prevented this war or led to a faster Ukrainian victory. It is particularly true in this case that early decisive support pays critical dividends, and it remains true that principled, strong, supportive engagement early on strengthens our strategic position and spares us costs down the line. The cost of investing in security is outweighed by the cost of not investing in security.

Although it would clearly have been better if this war had never started, the fact that Russia's basic military and strategic weakness has now been exposed, and the fact that a substantial portion of Russia's fighting capacity has been destroyed underline the strategic benefits to the west of past and ongoing military support for Ukraine. In the midst of these events, it astonishes me that some people still make the absurd claim that victory for Ukraine is impossible. It is astonishing because when I think back to where we were four years ago, when I would wake up with the baby and anxiously check my phone to see if Kyiv had fallen, and how from those dark early days, when it looked as though Ukraine's government might collapse and immediately be replaced by a puppet regime that would rule the whole country, we have instead come to this present situation where parts of eastern Ukraine remain occupied but with little territorial change and Russia continues to sustain far more casualties than the Ukrainians do.

The war is terrible, but what Ukraine has achieved and preserved is also incredible. Imagine what would yet be possible if the west were a bit more serious about giving Ukraine every tool it required to fight and succeed. Small countries with sufficient economic and military support and the superior will to fight can and do win wars and change the course of history. Ukraine can win. Ukraine must win. Ukraine will win. My support and our Conservative support for the Ukrainian people will be unrelenting until victory is achieved, and we call for the policies that will allow that victory to be achieved as quickly as possible.

Today we are debating Bill C-219, an important bill that deals with international human rights. This bill draws pieces from other human rights bills that have been before the House previously. In particular, this bill contains provisions from the international human rights act that I worked on extensively in the last Parliament. That bill was adopted unanimously by the House but was not even examined by the Senate.

I do not think the government liked the bill, even though it did not oppose it openly. I believe it directed its allies in the Senate to prevent that bill from moving forward. The Senate is supposed to be the House of sober second thought and not to do the government's dirty work by blocking legislation without studying it, so I hope that we do not see a repeat of that abuse.

Bill C-219 would strengthen the sanctions that were applied against violators of human rights, including those responsible for transnational repression, it would strengthen accountability by requiring the government to respond to recommendations for sanctions put forward by parliamentary committees, and it would amend the Broadcasting Act to prohibit foreign state-controlled media involved in human rights abuses from having privileged access to Canadian airwaves.

Foreign state-controlled media have actually been directly involved in the perpetration of human rights violations through the production of forced confessions. It is unthinkable that forced confessions, extracted through grievous violations of fundamental human rights, would be shown on Canadian television through the awarding of broadcasting licences to those who are perpetrators of human rights violations. I would strongly encourage the CRTC and the heritage minister to take steps on their own to prevent this kind of complicity in human rights violations even before we pass the bill.

While we rightly work to pass legislation that advances human rights, the use of sanctioning tools will always be dependent on political will and on whether the government actually uses the tools that legislation provides. The Trudeau government's approach to human rights was symbolic but insincere, preening without pushing. It abstained on genocide votes in this House and dismissed arms sales to aggressors as no big deal while pushing for the most general, non-binding human rights language and adding the word “progressive” to the front of trade deals already negotiated. This approach placated some and annoyed others, but it did not actually change anything that mattered.

The current approach of the Liberals has dropped the pretenses, but they have learned the wrong lessons. A G7 nation does have the power and the capacity to take on specific human rights issues in a real, substantive and prudent way and advance them in a manner that puts substance ahead of signalling. This is the right thing to do in response to a recognition of the universal and immutable dignity of the human person. It is also the strategically smart thing to do.

The compromises that the Prime Minister wants to make on human rights are not just at odds with our values; they are contrary to our interests. At a fundamental level, the world is in a period of escalating competition. In this world, Canada must be strong. Canada must form durable alliances with real partners, and Canada must play a role in managing the flow of essential resources so that we and our allies are not strategically dependent on our enemies.

The Prime Minister's recent deal with China increases our strategic dependence on a regime that could cut us off for arbitrary political reasons without any possible avenue of independent appeal, increasingly making us more dependent on the CCP. This is not right, and this is not smart. Our most critical relationships with other peoples and nations are formed when we stand up for our values and when we build community with those who are on the same side.

Aristotle wrote that perfect friendship is the friendship of men who are good and alike in virtue, for these wish well alike to each other. What is true of friendship among individuals is also true among nations: Strategically useful, trusting and effective friendships among nations form when nations are good and alike in virtue. By good, I mean not necessarily that their present leaders are good, but that they have good constitutions. It is the real substance of an international rules-based order that nations can ascend in the virtuousness of their constitutions and laws and can be drawn into greater community with other like-minded nations through that ascent.

The alternative, highly transactional approach to global affairs promoted by the Prime Minister necessarily leaves us more vulnerable, and this is why human rights are important, not just as ends in themselves, but as means to other ends.

In closing, I would like to draw the attention of the House to one particular case of concern related to human rights, that of Silvana Atef Fanous in Egypt. Silvana is a minor with an intellectual disability: She has the cognitive ability of an eight-year-old. She disappeared and was later discovered to be in the custody of an older man, who claimed she had converted and planned to marry him. This is a clear violation of Egyptian law. There are many very troubling aspects of Silvana's case, including the way that authorities continue to treat her family. I am closely following this case, and I call for the immediate, safe return of Silvana to her family.

Human rights advocacy is about thinking of the human person on the other side of the world and who that person is, and recognizing their dignity as the same as ours and our children's. Human rights are about placing real people at the centre of what we do and advocating that the Silvanas of the world never be forgotten.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak to Bill C-219 and Canada's ongoing work to promote human rights and address corruption. Canada recognizes the work and influence of Sergei Magnitsky in helping create international tools designed to respond to acts of significant corruption and human rights violations. These tools remain essential as we confront modern threats to international peace and security.

I want to acknowledge the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman for his role in enacting Canada's Sergei Magnitsky Law and thank him for introducing Bill C-219. The bill seeks to amend four pieces of federal legislation related to foreign policy, sanctions, international human rights obligations and broadcasting licences.

Under the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, Canada has imposed sanctions against 80 foreign nationals. Canada has also imposed dozens of sanctions against individuals and entities responsible for human rights violations and corruption under the Special Economic Measures Act.

Let us also recognize that today marks the fourth anniversary of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. On this solemn anniversary, we remember those who have lost their lives fighting against Putin's tyranny, and we recommit to ending this war and holding Russia to account. Since the invasion began four years ago, Canada has imposed sanctions on thousands of individuals and entities linked to the Kremlin, including senior officials, oligarchs and those enabling the war effort.

The promotion, respect and advancement of human rights continues to be at the heart of Canada's foreign policy. Protecting and defending human rights is essential to building stable, prosperous and inclusive societies. We see this clearly in Ukraine, where civilians continue to face indiscriminate attacks, including strikes on energy infrastructure, schools and hospitals.

We have delivered over $23.5 billion in military, humanitarian and financial assistance since the war began, making us one of the largest contributors to Ukraine's recovery and reconstruction. Canada has provided armoured combat support vehicles, artillery systems and ammunition, drones, winter gear and advanced air defence systems to help Ukraine protect civilians and critical infrastructure. We have also funded demining initiatives and battlefield medical support to help save lives.

In addition to military support, Canada has provided billions of dollars in financial assistance to stabilize Ukraine's economy. This includes sovereign loan support and direct budgetary funding to help the Ukrainian government continue delivering essential services like pensions, health care and education, even as the war continues.

Humanitarian support remains a cornerstone of Canada's response. We have committed hundreds of millions of dollars in life-saving assistance, including food aid, emergency shelter, clean water, medical supplies and winterization support. Canada has also provided generators, transformers and grid repair equipment to help restore a lot of the electricity and heat following Russian strikes on energy infrastructure.

Human rights defenders are often on the front lines, shining a spotlight on violations and advocating meaningful change. Canada has supported Ukrainian civil society organizations, accountability initiatives and documentation of war crimes to ensure that perpetrators are held to account.

We have also welcomed tens of thousands of displaced Ukrainians through special immigration measures, and provided support to help them rebuild their lives in safety, including work permits, settlement services and access to education and health care.

Support for human rights defenders is non-negotiable for these courageous individuals who hold governments and companies to account, often while risking their safety in the face of reprisals and repression. When and where necessary, Canada will respond decisively to states' use of repression and violence beyond their borders, as well as against their own people.

Considering this, as mentioned in the first hour of the second reading of this bill, the government supports the objectives of Bill C-219 but remains concerned about significant flaws in the legislation. We look forward to working with the member of Parliament for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman and our opposition colleagues at the foreign affairs committee to address these concerns.

Under the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, human rights defenders, activists, journalists, lawyers, community leaders and ordinary citizens are essential for accountability and progress. Canadians care deeply about human rights and expect their government to help protect and advance human rights at home and around the world.

Canada recognizes the vital role that human rights defenders play, often at great personal risk, in upholding universal rights and strengthening the rule of law. We have demonstrated this through concrete action. Canada has trained tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops under Operation Unifier and its continuation in Europe, contributing instructors and expertise in multinational training missions, which I saw first-hand last year.

We have provided advanced military equipment and worked with partners to strengthen Ukraine's resilience on the battlefield and beyond. Canada has also supported Ukraine's long-term recovery and reconstruction. We have contributed funding to international financial institutions and reconstruction initiatives aimed at rebuilding critical infrastructure, supporting small and medium-sized enterprises and strengthening democratic institutions and anti-corruption reforms.

We have also supported international investigations into atrocities, including efforts to pursue justice for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Canada has funded documentation efforts, legal assistance and accountability mechanisms, including support for international courts and Ukrainian prosecutors working to hold perpetrators accountable. I will emphasize again that supporting human rights defenders is not optional. It is imperative.

Bill C-219 aims to amend Canada's sanctions regime and the Special Economic Measures Act to address certain perceived gaps and shortcomings. However, it would have negative impacts by adding unnecessary paperwork and administrative burdens. The Prime Minister has been clear that he wants to improve government efficiencies. That said, our government supports some of the legislative amendments proposed in this bill such as new sanction triggers, and we look forward to further discussions on this at committee.

Canada's use of sanctions has been a critical tool in responding to Russia's war against Ukraine. We have worked in lockstep with allies to impose one of the largest sanctions responses in history, including coordinated measures to freeze assets and restrict access to global financial systems. We have sanctioned thousands of individuals and entities linked to the Kremlin and those enabling the war effort. We have also moved forward with innovative tools to seize and repurpose sanctioned assets in support of Ukraine's reconstruction. Canada was the first G7 country to introduce legislation allowing for the seizure and repurposing of sanctioned Russian assets, and we continue working with partners to ensure those resources are directed toward rebuilding Ukraine.

Lastly, I will touch on the bill's proposed amendments to the Broadcasting Act. Acknowledging the crucial role media plays in supporting and advancing human rights, I think we can all agree this is a shared objective. We have seen how disinformation has been weaponized in the context of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, reinforcing the importance of credible, independent media and responsible regulatory frameworks.

That said, these provisions fail to account for important factors such as the CRTC's lack of expertise to determine whether a genocide has occurred. The bill could also benefit from amendments allowing the CRTC to address content distributed by foreign broadcasters of concern and to rely on the expertise of judicial and quasi-judicial bodies, both domestically and internationally, when making determinations related to political influence and international criminal law.

In conclusion, the government looks forward to continuing the in-depth study of this bill in committee. We firmly believe Parliament can address the concerns raised and strengthen the legislation by adopting meaningful amendments.

Let me be clear: We cannot and will not support amendments that compromise the safety of individuals. Similarly, provisions that are duplicative and costly will not be supported.

We stand ready to collaborate with the member opposite and with all colleagues in the House to develop practical and sustainable solutions consistent with the spirit of Bill C-219.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on the anniversary of Russia's brutal invasion in Ukraine, we are reminded of something that should never be controversial in the House: Unchecked tyranny anywhere threatens freedom everywhere. We have seen it in Kyiv. We have seen it in Tehran, and increasingly, we see it reaching into our own communities here at home.

Tyranny does not start with tanks. It starts with corruption, with kleptocrats stealing from their own people and with judges who do not serve justice but instead serve the dictators who put them there. It starts with silencing women and girls, jailing dissidents and crushing journalists. Then, when no one stops it, it metastasizes. It becomes the brutality of war. This is the pattern we saw in Moscow, and that is the pattern we are seeing in Tehran and we have seen in Tehran over the last 47 years. It is the pattern this legislation is designed to confront.

Nearly a decade ago, Canada made a decision that defined who we are. My colleague in this place from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, alongside Senator Andreychuk and many other principled advocates close to this place, brought Canada's Sergei Magnitsky Law into force. It was named after a man who exposed corruption and paid for it with his life. Sergei Magnitsky was tortured to death for telling the truth. His murder was meant to silence others, and instead it gave democracy their most powerful non-military weapon against modern authoritarians: targeted sanctions that strike kleptocrats, despots and dictators where it hurts more, which is their money and, most importantly, their mobility. Canada acted with moral clarity, but today's threats have evolved and so too must the country's response.

Long before I got elected to the House, I had the privilege of working alongside colleagues who understood this deeply, including the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, who has spent more than a decade pushing Canada to take corruption, human rights and foreign intimidation seriously. When he is in the room, I know I am in the right room, and his commitment extends well beyond the House and his time here in it.

This legislation builds on that foundation. It strengthens, modernizes and sharpens our sanctions regime so it is not symbolic, it is not slow and it is not selective. In other words, it makes it clear, predictable and enforceable. It does this because silence protects dictators, while scrutiny, the very thing we are responsible for here, protects those who are oppressed.

Here is a short breakdown for everybody who is interested as to how this modernization would look. This would require an annual public report on Canada's human rights sanctions and on prisoners of conscience worldwide, including Canadians unjustly detained abroad. There is far more that could be done on that front, but this is a start. In fact, there have been a number of pieces of legislation introduced to the House to look at that issue specifically that have been rejected wholeheartedly by the government. We have to say this out loud: Sunlight does save lives. It saved the life of Vladimir Kara-Murza. It did for the two Michaels, and it can do that again.

This bill would also formally define and sanction transnational repression, because what once required secret police crossing borders now requires only a phone, a consulate and a proxy organization operating quietly in our communities. We know it is happening. Let us be honest about what that means. Authoritarian regimes in Beijing, Tehran, Moscow and beyond are intimidating, surveilling, harassing and threatening people right here in Canada. Dissidents receive midnight calls. Activists are told that their families back home will suffer. Students are followed. Journalists are pressured. This is not an abstract theory. It is happening in Toronto, in Vancouver, in Calgary, in Montreal and right across the country.

As an MP, and I am not the only one in the House, I have often taken a call from someone in a car, far away from their house, with a blurred-out background, whispering because they are terrified that the regime they ran away from is following them right here in Canada. If authoritarian states can reach into our cities and hunt their critics, we no longer have full control over the spaces that we claim are our own. Canada should be a sanctuary for freedom, not a playground for these foreign tyrants, but that is exactly what is happening here.

This bill would ensure that when regimes engage in transnational repression on Canadian soil, there are swift, automatic consequences: We would freeze their assets, ban their travel, name them publicly and make it unmistakably clear that Canada will not be their hunting ground and that Canadians who ran away from them will not be hunted.

We would also close the loophole that allows intimidated family members of sanctioned officials to live in luxury while their relatives jail protesters and siphon money from abroad. There would be no more parking illicit assets here while citizens back home suffer, or regime activists working out in the local fitness club or eating steaks at Toronto's fanciest restaurant, which we have also seen.

We would revoke broadcasting licences for state-controlled propaganda outlets run by regimes committing atrocities. A regime committing a genocide does not deserve a megaphone on Canadian airwaves. We should support the creation of an international anti-corruption court, because before tyrants become war criminals, they are corrupt officials. We know this through every point in history. They steal; then they repress, and then they wage war. If we confront corruption on the front end, we reduce the atrocities that often follow.

I want to spend a few moments on why this matters and to whom it matters. The tragedy of flight PS752 still weighs heavily on many families in this country. They have waited years for justice and compensation. Frozen regime assets exist, and they should serve the victims, not sit idle. I know this is not foundational to families, because money does not heal the unimaginable and permanent loss they experience, but it would serve a purpose and it would tell the world that we stand up for our people.

Russian sovereign assets frozen in Canada should support Ukraine's fight for survival. When foreign governments intimidate people on Canadian soil, it is not only a violation of rights. It becomes a test of our own, of whether we still believe in moral consequences or have grown too distracted and too divided to draw that very important line.

The Cold War had a clarity that many in our era have forgotten. It drew a line clearly between fear and freedom. Today, those lines are less visible, but they are just as real. They run through the phone of a dissident who fled Tehran, through the inbox of a Hong Kong activist and through the heart of a Ukrainian family who believed that Canada meant safety and now wonder whether the regime they escaped followed them here. If we do not draw that line, we teach dictators that Canada could be a welcoming home.

This legislation would draw that line clearly. It would say, “Canada will name, shame and sanction you, and will shut the door on your money and your friends. It would say, “Canada will not be neutral between those who are jailed and the jailer.” It would say something that matters deeply to Iranian Canadians who marched for Mahsa Amini and those who marched in the hundreds of thousands, even in the last week, against the genocidal mullahs; to the Ukrainian Canadians watching their homeland defend itself; to the Hong Kong democracy advocates; to the Tibetans; to the Uyghurs and to anyone who came here because Canada represented freedom: “We will not allow the dictators you escaped to intimidate you here in Canada.” That is something everyone here should agree on.

I hope that this legislation passes, that the Liberals take it seriously, that it is studied in committee and that the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman is successful in his pursuit of human rights, dignity and the rule of law, as he has always been in this place.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and address the issue that the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman has brought forward in the form of a private member's bill.

This is one of those occasions when there is substantial support to see a bill advance. I believe we have had members from all sides of the House support the principle of the legislation, recognizing that Canada is indeed a world leader in many of the things we do. There is an expectation that where we can in fact improve upon the system, there is movement toward doing so.

The Prime Minister has been very clear over the last year, since he first became our Prime Minister, about how important it is that Canada has a place on the world stage. We know the experience that he brings to the table, his understanding of the economy and the relations he has with world leaders. From a personal perspective, and what virtually every member of the House would be able to talk about, we recognize what our Canadian values are and understand that we can make the world a better place to live.

I see Bill C-219 as a piece of legislation that has the potential for a more thorough discussion at the committee stage. I know the government is very interested in advancing that. When we talk about the bill itself, there are four aspects. In terms of sanctions and so forth, there are four pieces of legislation that we should be aware of: the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act; the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act; the Broadcasting Act; and the Special Economic Measures Act.

As our caucus has indicated, there are things we can do to update or modernize our sanction regimes. I think this piece of legislation before us today affords us the opportunity to do just that. Hopefully, we will be able to capture the same sort of goodwill that we see on the floor of the House of Commons in the debate on this legislation and carry it to the standing committee. I think that is important. I will not be in attendance at the standing committee, but I trust that if we can get that same sort of co-operation, and build on a consensus, we can all take some pride in the final product that the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman is proposing.

It is interesting that we are debating this legislation today. On Sunday, I and the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, along with Manitoba's premier and the mayor of Winnipeg, spoke at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights. We addressed literally hundreds of people who came to downtown Winnipeg to listen to what we had to say, and hear what the Government of Canada had to say, in regard to what is taking place on the four-year anniversary of the illegal invasion of Ukraine by Putin. There was a great deal of emotion flowing through the human rights museum.

People are looking to Canada for the types of things that Canada can do and has done. I, for one, look at the seizure and repurpose of Russian assets and how, as a nation, we led the way, in terms of the G7 countries.

I provided comments there with regard to the billions of dollars, over $22 billion, that the federal government has committed to support and has spent on helping the people of Ukraine. What is happening in Ukraine matters a great deal here in Canada. I reference the 1.3 million people in Canada of Ukrainian heritage, not to mention the 300,000 people who fled Ukraine because of the illegal invasion to come to Canada, where they would have a sense of security; where their children can in fact continue on with some normalcy, whether it is in their education or in having some health care services; and where they can contribute.

I am absolutely amazed how, in both urban and rural communities, individuals coming from Ukraine have really worked to develop and improve our economy here. I think Canada opening its doors was very important and was the right thing to do.

I made reference to the horrors of war. We have talked about issues such as how Canada is using billions of dollars to support Ukraine. My colleague made reference to Operation Unifier, which was enabled through our forces to assist in the training of tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers in a very direct, and at times indirect, way. We have supported the military with armaments and supplies of all different forms.

We have talked about the humanitarian aid that Canadians have provided, both through public dollars and through individuals stepping up and donating their dollars directly. Canada has been there in a very real way.

We have talked about the issue of child abduction, which brings us back to the whole issue of human rights, the tragedies and what we have been witnessing there: a wide spectrum of human rights violations. Canada will continue to monitor that and act where we can.

We have talked about the importance of international courts. We have talked about how important it is that not only are we there today for Ukraine but also that we continue to be there in the future. There are things such as the trade agreement that was signed when the President of Ukraine came here, when we looked at the issue of investing in infrastructure and the rebuilding of Ukraine. Having a system of sanctions that is effective is absolutely important, not only for this government but also, I believe, as a reflection of what our values are. There is an expectation that we look at ways to improve those four pieces of legislation. That is something we want.

As I indicated in my opening comment, we are prepared to work with all members of the House. Hopefully, if the bill gets to committee, we will be able to continue on that consensus bill and, at the end of the day, continue to demonstrate that as legislators here in Ottawa, we can in fact make a positive difference and make our sanction regime even better by modernizing it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman now has his right of reply.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank everyone who has spoken to my bill, Bill C-219, the Sergei Magnitsky international anti-corruption and human rights act. I have been listening carefully through the two hours of debate that we have had.

First of all, I have to thank my seconder, the member for Northumberland—Clarke, for the work he did in the previous Parliament on his own piece of legislation, which was folded into this one. I also have to thank the member for Thornhill for their very kind words. I thank the members for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Calgary Heritage, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Etobicoke Centre, Rivière-du-Nord, Winnipeg North, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton and Lac-Saint-Jean, and of course, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who is also the member for Don Valley West, for their interventions.

This legislation will strengthen Canada's sanctions regime to better align with our allies so we can hold foreign states, foreign entities and individuals to account for their abuses of power and corruption around the world. It encompasses changes that have been advocated by the diaspora communities here in Canada for years.

What we have heard from so many people today is that we have, for far too long, been hearing about things like foreign interference here in Canada and transnational repression. The people who are in communities here are still worried, whether they are from the Iranian community, the People's Republic of China, from Sudan and other places or from Ukraine even. There are Russians living here who are pro-democracy advocates and who are getting stories from back home of the ongoing corruption, interference and abuse that is taking place.

It is fitting that we are here on the fourth anniversary of the war in Ukraine, of Russia's unjust invasion. We know that, if we had this type of legislation in place some time ago, if we were sanctioning kleptocrats and corrupt foreign officials like Vladimir Putin when he was shaking down people like Bill Browder and ordering the murder of Sergei Magnitsky, maybe they would not have become the tyrants, despots and dictators who then want to wage war on their neighbours, just like the theocracy in Tehran, Putin in Russia or what we are seeing the Communist Chinese Party doing to Taiwan and Hong Kong. This is important.

Just to quickly recap what the bill does, Bill C-219 would require that the Minister of Foreign Affairs publish an annual report to advance what they are doing to advance human rights internationally, including the names and status of prisoners of conscience who are being held around the world. This would amend the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, the Sergei Magnitsky Law, which I had passed here in 2017, as well as the Special Economic Measures Act, changing it to the Sergei Magnitsky global sanctions act.

The bill would define what transnational repression is, and it would sanction the foreign nationals who commit it here in Canada and elsewhere. It would ban, immediately, the immediate family members of sanctioned foreign nationals so that Canada could no longer be used as a safe haven for those corrupt foreign officials to hide their families and their wealth. It would require the government to table in Parliament the names of foreign nationals and any that are added to the sanction list.

It would provide support to the Minister of Foreign Affairs at their sanctions bureau by requiring the RCMP and FINTRAC to report to the minister and give them more tools, allow parliamentary committees to hear from diaspora communities and suggest names and entities to be added to our sanctions regime, and establish timelines for the forfeiture of frozen assets. Finally, it would amend the Broadcasting Act to revoke the licences of media outlets that are in countries that have been sanctioned by Canada or that the House and the Senate have recognized as committing genocide.

In the bill, in the preamble, we are encouraging the government to continue to pursue the establishment of the international anti-corruption court at The Hague, along with our allies. If we can get at these corrupt foreign officials sooner, maybe they would not turn into warmongers like Vladimir Putin or people like Ayatollah Khomeini and the mullahs who are committing mass atrocities in Iran today and creating destabilizing impacts across the region.

I ask everyone to support this bill. I am looking forward to our work at committee and to seeing the amendments that may be proposed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the House pass Bill C-219 unanimously.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)