Foreign Affairs Committee on April 30th, 2026

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

I think detainee information should be released if the family wishes it. However, as drafted, the bill implies the opposite, even though the minister could decide to exclude certain information. I think we need to determine whether doing the opposite wouldn't be preferable, that is to first obtain the family's consent to publish the information related to political prisoners in the minister's annual report.

I don't know if you're prepared to support an amendment that suggests the opposite, that is to obtain the family's consent before publishing the information in an annual report.

Would you?

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

I'm definitely open to reasonable amendments. That, to me, is very doable and is one that would balance off the needs of the family and the concerns they might have to ensure their loved ones are protected.

The downside of it, as well—and I understand this—is that it could result in more transnational repression of their family members, whether they're still back in the country of concern or here in Canada.

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

How much time do I have left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

You have 30 seconds.

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

I'll use those 30 seconds to thank you, because I think this bill is fundamental and extremely important. It's going to change the way Canada behaves.

I sincerely thank you for the work you've done. We, as a committee, have work to do to improve this bill and make it even more effective, but the principle of the bill, we owe it to you, Mr. Bezan. I congratulate and thank you. A lot of people thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Thank you very much.

We have MP Kronis to start off the second round of questions.

You have five minutes.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I want to echo the thanks of my colleague from the Bloc Québécois. You've taken on a really complicated topic, you've reviewed it and you've really put something comprehensive forward. A number of us sit on the human rights subcommittee of the foreign affairs committee in addition to being here, and this means a lot to us.

As we've said quite a lot lately, democracy is something that dies in the darkness, and you've really taken steps to shine a light on that darkness through this bill, which addresses six key areas. It brings forward human rights accountability reporting. It defines and recognizes transnational repression. It expands sanctions. It brings asset forfeiture and enforcement timelines into line and into a stronger regime. It helps with transparency and parliamentary oversight, and then it takes that additional step to deal with issues of foreign influence and broadcasting controls.

I get a lot of correspondence from Canadians whose families are targeted by foreign regimes and from others who are concerned about transnational repression, foreign interference and disinformation and, of course, the presence of war criminals in Canada. They want Canada to act on things.

We've talked a lot about the importance of this bill theoretically. I'm wondering.... You must have spoken to a number of Canadians who shared their personal stories with you. Do you think you could talk a bit and expand a little on the way in which this is going to make a difference and matter to Canadians?

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

In our frequent conversations, different diaspora communities have some horrific stories. They may have family members back in China who are being held in forced labour camps for Uyghurs, or they may be members of the Falun Dafa community whose loved ones were captured and tortured and had their organs illegally harvested. The individuals who carried out these grotesque human rights violations enriched themselves and still have free ability to travel wherever they want.

You can look at the number of deaths that have occurred in Ukraine because of Russia's aggression and attacks. Families have often lost loved ones to sexual violence from Russian soldiers as they invaded over the lines in places like Irpin and Bucha. I've been there and met with the families, and they have loved ones back here. There's no recourse for them against the monsters who carried these things out under the direction of Vladimir Putin.

I talked to people in the Persian community who watched their loved ones thrown into prison outside of Tehran and then executed. The brutality that takes place on the streets is.... All they wanted was freedom, democracy and human rights, the things that we take for granted, which are being denied in so many other countries around the world. If we don't stand up and hold the people who are carrying out these atrocities and these genocides to account, nothing will ever change.

How do people become genocidal maniacs? They almost always start by being a corrupt foreign official who is stuffing their pockets illegally out of the government coffers at the expense of the citizens they're supposed to be representing and providing the public good for. You can look at somebody like Viktor Yanukovych when he was president of Ukraine. He stuffed his pockets and ran away to Russia as soon as the people turned against him. He was prepared to take away all of their rights and their civil liberties. In the process, he engorged himself on the public purse for his own personal benefit.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

I want to thank you for that comprehensive answer.

I know that the bill does define transnational repression specifically as “tactics used by a foreign state to intimidate, harass, surveil or threaten individuals or groups located outside the state borders”. I am certain that Canadians who are experiencing those things will take some comfort from the fact that the Government of Canada now clearly defines that activity as being something that is offensive to our values and criminal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Thank you very much.

Next, we go to MP Anita Vandenbeld. You have five minutes.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Bezan, for bringing a very good bill before Parliament.

I would note that a lot of us worked together across party lines for the first Magnitsky bill and also later on things like getting Vladimir Kara-Murza honorary Canadian citizenship. Also, Ms. Kronis mentioned the work we do across parties on the Subcommittee on International Human Rights, where I do see quite a bit of overlap.

In looking at the bill, I wondered if you could reflect on a few things that I have a few questions about.

One of them is under the Broadcasting Act. Obviously, Russia Today is a very evident, very obvious example. When you look at the way this part is worded—and obviously, broadcasting and press freedom is a fundamental tenet of our democratic society—it says if a broadcaster is “vulnerable to being significantly influenced”. Instead of just saying “sanctioned”, you also mention a genocidal foreign actor.

I wonder if it's possible that there could be examples of something fitting into that phrasing that maybe isn't as obvious as something like Russia Today. Why did you choose that particular wording, and would you be open to finessing that a bit to make sure that it doesn't capture broadcasters that really shouldn't be banned?

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

I would say this: I know some people think this could be an infringement on freedom of the press or freedom of expression, trying to censor what people are listening to. In our experience, though, a lot of corrupt regimes use these state broadcasters for propaganda. RT is by far the best choice. We know state television, whether out of Beijing or Iran.... They're all propaganda machines.

If we are going to ensure that.... When we decide, as Parliament or the Government of Canada, that we're going to sanction the broadcaster itself, the state sponsor, or the kleptocrat or oligarch who owns it, it should be an immediate thing that happens. We cancel that licence so they can't continue to broadcast.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I think we all agree that it should be much quicker.

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

It shouldn't take forever, though. That's what happened with RT. It took far too long to get them taken off the air.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I think we all agree that it should be very quick. It's just about the potential for unintended interpretations.

We can look at that.

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

We need more clarity. I'm definitely open to working across party lines to figure out what works for all of us. Ultimately, at the end of the day, we want to get this right.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I think we all agree on that.

The other thing I am wondering is this: You talked about disclosure. We may need exceptions for when, for instance, disclosing sanctions we're doing to allies might tip off a perpetrator, so that they're able to evade them. It would lead to the exact opposite. They would start evading and covering up what they're doing because of that disclosure.

Is it possible to build in some exceptions that would allow, in those cases, the cabinet or the minister to not have to reveal it, if it might have that unintended consequence?

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

For sure, at the end of the day, we want to make sure those entities, individuals or states are not using Canada as a safe haven. Yes, if the goal is to freeze their assets so that these are forfeited down the road for the benefit of victims or the state they're invading, let's be smart about it.

At the same time, at the end of the day, we have the regulations that are filed under the current sanctions regime, through SEMA or the Magnitsky Law. Already, there is some of that transparency there. Let's just make sure it's being done and reported back to us as parliamentarians, so more Canadians understand what we're doing and why we're doing it.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Can you give examples of other, like-minded countries that have similar kinds of clauses or legislation?

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

Yes, we're looking through it. Definitely, the United States and the European Union have, by far, the best sanctions laws. What we're trying to do is coordinate to ensure that we align with them. The U.K., of course, has been playing some catch-up after leaving the European Union, but they are trying to fashion their own Magnitsky law off the European Union's law. Other OECD nations have good Magnitsky-type legislation. We're seeing this in the Baltic states especially, and in Eastern Europe.

The more we can coordinate and align.... It's about ensuring that we are moving in coordination and having that maximum impact. There are behind-the-scenes talks among our allies and friends to ensure that, when we do bring forward a needed sanction against an entity, it has maximum impact.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Thank you very much.

We go, next, to MP Brunelle-Duceppe.

You have two and a half minutes.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Bezan, I do have some concerns about the bill as it relates to freedom of expression under international law and human rights.

The amendments your bill proposes to the Broadcasting Act limit the issuance or renewal of licences for any broadcasting undertaking vulnerable to being significantly influenced by a foreign national or entity that has committed genocide or is the subject of an order or regulation under the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act or the Sergei Magnitsky Act.

I just want to give you an opportunity to explain why. Do you think this really infringes on freedom of expression? I agree with what you're doing, but, since various concerned groups are pressuring the MPs who are going to legislate on the bill, I'd like to hear your comments and explanation as to why this part of the bill is important and why it doesn't necessarily infringe on freedom of expression.

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

Colleagues, we know that, besides RT TV, there are a number of radio broadcasts that are also transmitted across this country by organizations or agencies that are essentially proxies for the regimes that all of us are all too aware of. They are using our airways to poison Canadians against the very people this proposed act is aiming to protect. If we are going to protect our diaspora communities, if we're going to protect those who are living under these dictatorships and theocracies and despots who are abusing their human rights, then we shouldn't allow them to transmit their propaganda, either directly or through their proxies here in Canada, whether by radio or by television.

Regarding the issue of freedom of speech, we're not stopping Canadians from saying what they want. We're going after those who have already been identified and sanctioned by the Government of Canada, or an entity or state that Parliament has decided has carried out a genocide. To my mind, there's no way we'd want to give them any bandwidth to promote their hate and disdain for the people they are persecuting back in their own countries.

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

I'd like to ask another question. It's not a trick question.