Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just picking up where I left off, there are a few other legislative initiatives within part 4, like attempts to solve issues with Canada Post parcels being stolen—and I'm not sure what that has to do with a budget—and establishing the employment insurance appeal board.
I guess my point is that a few years ago I thought there was a lesson learned. A few years ago, in the budget implementation bill, there was a section that amended the Criminal Code to allow for deferred prosecution agreements. That initiative led to a major scandal that resulted in the dismissal of the first indigenous attorney general in the history of Canada.
When I see these kinds of bills, I worry, because there's just so much in them. I know the government wants to get their bill passed, and there's pressure to get it done.
I'm wondering if anyone can answer this question. Are there any changes in Bill C-47 that would benefit any one particular company? Can anyone here answer that? You don't know. There might be. There's a lot of silence around the table.
Okay, I'll go on to something else, but I think that non-response speaks volumes.
I want to ask a question about SEMA and the Magnitsky act. Is there someone here who can take that up?
Specifically, my question has to do with the prior changes. The briefing notes say:
In response to Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine...Canada implemented legislative changes to both SEMA and JVCFOA to authorize the Minister of Foreign Affairs to seek forfeiture of seized assets. The forfeited funds can be used in support of reconstruction of a foreign State, to restore international peace and security, and/or as compensation to victims.
I'm just wondering what action has happened under that section since it was implemented. What's the value of assets seized to date? Have any of these monies been allocated to reconstruction or as compensation to victims?