Foreign Affairs Committee on Feb. 3rd, 2026

[Anita Anand, Liberal, Oakville East, ON]

Actually, I am making a claim in Ontario's Superior Court for us to have the legal right to seize and liquidate that asset, if necessary. Again, that is another example of the way in which I'm acting, Mr. Chair.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Will you prohibit Russian refined petroleum products from entering Canada under the EIPA?

[Anita Anand, Liberal, Oakville East, ON]

I want to begin by saying it's irresponsible to suggest that these sanctions are not worth putting on Russia. This is an effort in which, as a country, we should be supporting Ukrainians in their time of need to protect their territorial integrity and their state sovereignty.

Mr. Chair, I'm actually surprised that the member opposite does not believe that as well.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Having a paper tiger doesn't [Inaudible—Editor].

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Thank you. We're out of time.

I'm going next to MP Rob Oliphant.

You have five minutes.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to follow up on some earlier questions that I think were really fine from Mr. Aboultaif, who was digging into the necessity for this change.

My understanding is there was an interpretation of the existing laws that could have limited the government's ability to defend Canadian economic sovereignty and well-being. These amendments were put in on both the export and import sides to clarify for certainty and ensure the government would be acting under the law while Canadians were concerned about their economic well-being due to either economic dependency on cheap goods coming into Canada from areas that would diminish jobs in Canada.

Am I right that this was to add a certain legal clarity so that the government could act under the Governor in Council?

[Anita Anand, Liberal, Oakville East, ON]

Yes, exactly. I will further emphasize that each country has its own unique control framework. Our view is that having a power that other countries have would enable us to collaborate with them internationally, as well as to provide us with yet another measure if, in fact, we were required to respond to issues relating to economic security.

I will also say that the amendments would be taken very seriously and would only be utilized in cases where there is no other tool to respond to the crisis at hand. It's an extra layer of security where other tools may not get the job done.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Thank you, Minister.

Following up on other questions, we have three sanctions regimes that we work under, with the Special Economic Measures Act, the so-called Magnitsky law and our participation in the UN sanctions regime. That there are not prosecutions at times could suggest that the sanctions are working. It could suggest, actually, that the power of these sanctions is for importers and exporters of goods in Canada to follow the law.

I would say that this measure you're adding is signalling to industry and to other countries that might want to threaten Canada's economic prosperity that we have a law that is strong and matches laws of some other countries quite similarly.

Is this law unique to Canada or is it similar to laws in other countries that would be deemed necessary to assert our economic sovereignty, as it were?

[Anita Anand, Liberal, Oakville East, ON]

This is a moment in the history of our country where protecting Canadian sovereignty is of the utmost importance. Like other countries, Canada is taking measures to ensure that we're protecting our economic security and, therefore, our overall sovereignty.

This is in addition to investments that we are making in the Canadian Armed Forces and in Arctic security—$80 billion for the defence and security of our country in the last federal budget, which I will note the members opposite voted against.

It is important also, if I could, to finalize the answer that I provided in the last round of questioning. There is proof that we are moving forward with the forfeiture of assets, including the Antonov aircraft. Forfeiture proceedings for the aircraft were initiated in 2025 by the Government of Canada in Ontario Superior Court. This is yet another example of the way in which we are utilizing the laws for the benefit of the Ukrainian people. It's very important for us to remember that.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

We're doing that within the rule of law, which is quite critical.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Thank you very much, MP Oliphant, for concluding that round.

Minister, I want to thank you for your appearance and testimony before this committee.

We will now briefly suspend the meeting to prepare for the second portion of our meeting.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

I call this meeting back to order.

Before proceeding with the witnesses, I'd like to inform members that any proposals or amendments they wish to submit as part of the study of Bill C-15 must be forwarded to the committee clerk. The clerk will compile them and transmit them to the Standing Committee on Finance no later than February 27. Members therefore have until February 26 to submit their proposals or amendments.

In addition, earlier today, the clerk circulated the budget for the present meeting. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the budget of $500?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Thank you.

I welcome back Mr. Robert Brookfield, who was with us during the first hour. He's joined by two colleagues: Patrick Boulanger, director of the export controls policy division; and Christian Larose, acting director of the export controls operation division.

Welcome.

I will now open the floor to questions, beginning with Mr. Aboultaif.

You have six minutes.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thanks to the witnesses for appearing before the committee today.

Who would like to define the economic security interest?

[Robert Brookfield]

I believe, as you've heard in the past from the minister and now today from my colleagues in the previous panel, the intent of the economic security terminology is broad. The gap it is intended to fill is the difference that presently exists under the Export and Import Permits Act to allow listings for various purposes, such as fulfilling free trade agreements, defence materials, distribution for national security and the broader desire to respond to the changing world we live in, under which other economic security interests such as supply chains and potential economic threats from other countries are directed at us.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Thank you.

Global Affairs Canada officials have indicated that clause 461 would allow articles to be added to the import control list, if necessary, to prevent Canada from developing an economic dependence on relatively cheap goods from unreliable foreign suppliers.

When we speak about cheap products, we know that historically, via globalization, China was on that list for products. Is this still the case now, and will this application of clause 461 manage to help prevent those incidents from happening?

[Robert Brookfield]

I would say that both clause 460 and clause 461 are intended to give us a tool that could be used in appropriate circumstances. It's country agnostic in the sense that this amendment does not target any particular country or any particular product. It would allow the controls, whether they're simply monitoring, restrictions or prohibitions, on listed products as they are described in appropriate circumstances.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Can you think of any product or any country specifically that this measure could be used against immediately as we implement it?

[Robert Brookfield]

I could certainly think of many countries or products that it could theoretically be used against. I would say the intent of the legislation is not to target any particular country or product specifically. The idea is to close a gap in terms of tools that could then be used, as the minister said, after appropriate consultations on and calculations of the impacts of any particular product being added and the types of controls that would be put on it.

Simply putting a product on the list through regulations would be insufficient to really determine what the controls are. The question would be this: What's the nature of the control? Again, is it prohibition or monitoring? Is it restriction on the volume? There are other sorts of things.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

I know the new regulation would apply to any product or country out there, but there must be priorities for which areas and industries we target in order to be able to protect Canadian products.

Any policy means to do two things. One is on the inside and one is on the outside. Part of the process is to somehow also protect our industries and protect our consumers. What I'm trying to get from you is whether there is a specific top list of products and industries that we would like to see protected.

[Robert Brookfield]

The simple answer is no.

There are various possibilities of how this tool could be used, but the motivation for this change is that the tool could be used in many certain situations, some of which we can guess at now and some of which we can't even speculate on. The purpose of it is to allow us to be flexible moving forward.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Does that mean we would have new tools in the hands of the government to implement new measures? Is that correct?

[Robert Brookfield]

Yes. The purpose of the legislation is to allow new items to be added to the export control list.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

What are these new tools that did not exist before?