Foreign Affairs Committee on May 7th, 2026

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

Thank you.

I may split my time with Mr. Chong. I thought Ziad was going first.

Thank you so much, Mr. Silver. Thank you for the support of your organization. Make sure that you give Professor Cotler our best. His leading-edge work on the Magnitsky sanctions will always be immortalized in Parliament. We will always recognize how hard he's worked in support of and standing up for human rights, as well as how he's such a strong leader. He's an inspiration to each and every one of us.

I'm glad you brought up the importance of why we want to make sure that we shine the spotlight on prisoners of conscience and human rights defenders, as the department likes to call them.

Can you talk more about what's happening with hostage diplomacy, which we're starting to witness from China and others? Why is it important that we continue to have this transparent reporting to ensure that this type of practice stops?

[Brandon Silver]

Thank you very much for that timely and important question.

The rapid rise of state hostage taking and arbitrary detention merits a reconsideration of current approaches to better address this situation. Having worked on a number of such cases, hand in hand with the hard-working folks in consular affairs, I want to commend the government for establishing a special hostage department, which was a necessary step, but more can be done.

I would suggest three amendments that can help reflect this in the prisoner of conscience section.

The first is mandating that the information on the numbers of prisoners of conscience in a country, which this legislation proposes, be included in the travel advisories issued by GAC. Beyond the public disclosures, right now, it's at times.... In Jimmy Lai's case, for example, a travel advisory was issued, stating that Hong Kong can arbitrarily apply local laws and that Canadians travelling there for business or tourism should take that into consideration. This is a potential way of protecting Canadians from being targeted abroad and of alleviating some of the burden on GAC.

The second is that the arbitrary detention and torture of prisoners of conscience in general, and of Canadians in particular, be added as a stand-alone, sanctionable offence. The TNR additions are essential if we're adding sections to the Magnitsky law. Talking specifically about the targeting of prisoners of conscience and the hostage taking of Canadians can be immensely helpful.

The third draws from the bill that Professor Cotler proposed in 2010, Bill C-554, an act to protect Canadians abroad. In shifting the suggestion about public disclosure to be contingent on the request of families, but not in a discretionary manner, pursuant to clauses 19 and 20 of Bill C-554, there could be a right to apply for mandamus. When Canadian family members want actions by the Canadian government, they should be able to demand them. We would suggest that the public reporting requirements of this bill, which we support, could be expanded to give the right to families to demand that of the government.

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

Thank you for those recommendations.

I'm going to give the rest of my time to Mr. Chong.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON]

How much time remains?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

You have two minutes and 20 seconds.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to focus on one of the purposes of the bill concerning the Broadcasting Act.

The government effectively took RT off the airwaves in Canada in 2022 through a cabinet directive issued under section 15 of the Broadcasting Act. The CGTN continues to operate. In the United Kingdom, in 2021, Ofcom—their CRTC—pulled CGTN off the airwaves because it concluded that the CGTN's broadcast editorial direction was coming from the Chinese Communist Party and the authoritarian state of the PRC.

Can you tell us what other democracies have pulled either RT or CGTN off their airwaves and the method by which they did that?

[Brandon Silver]

I can undertake to come back with that information.

More broadly, I would comment that there is a very clear nexus between the objective of this bill—to combat transnational repression—and elements of the bill that seek to limit the ability of foreign regimes to conduct foreign influence and foreign interference via their broadcasting, so we'd be broadly supportive.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON]

I concur with that assessment. It would be helpful if you could send the committee that information as we seek to amend that section of the bill.

I'd note, in support of what you just said, that Ofcom also concluded that the airing of a forced confession by Simon Cheng, a former official at the United Kingdom's consulate in Hong Kong, was a gross violation of human rights, which breached its licensing code. It's important for the record to show as well that these authoritarian, state-controlled broadcasters have done some pretty egregious things and are acting at the editorial direction of the CCP and the PRC.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Thank you very much.

We'll go next to MP Abdelhaq Sari for six minutes.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, Mr. Silver.

Canada is internationally recognized for taking a clear stance on issues involving serious human rights violations.

Bill C‑219 contains several elements. Could you explain, in the simplest terms possible for those following our proceedings, what would be its most significant contribution to strengthening Canada’s position in this regard?

[Brandon Silver]

Thank you for this important question. I would say that it is the provisions of the bill that target prisoners of conscience and give the government more tools to impose sanctions.

It is not just a matter of giving the government more powers and tools. It is also a matter of sending a message to the world, to victims, and to those who violate human rights, to say that Canada is committed and that the Canadian government’s foreign policy is rooted in human rights.

It is not just about the process. It is also about communication. This bill sends a clear and important message to that effect.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Among the proposed changes, what would be the most concrete and tangible effects that could actually lead to the perception you mentioned?

[Brandon Silver]

First, if I had to choose just one, I would say it is the changes to the criteria for imposing sanctions to include transnational repression and the creation of a definition in this regard.

Second, I would say it is the definition of “prisoner of conscience”. The government was asked to report on this and to engage with the families.

As I mentioned in my introductory remarks, families and the public have not had access to this information until now. Making this information publicly available could help Canadians make better decisions when travelling for personal or business purposes. It also sends a message to governments that take Canadians hostage or detain prisoners of conscience that such actions have consequences.

It gives the Canadian government more leverage. Basically, if we're publicly disclosing this information, it not only protects and informs Canadians, but it also has a deterrent effect on the imprisoning countries and holds them to account. A lot of them care about their reputation abroad. They're dependent on tourism and business transactions, and it is hoped that this, beyond sanctions, could encourage some behaviour changes.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Do you think the bill goes far enough? Does it have enough teeth, as we say here in Quebec, or should it be strengthened? Is it sound and comprehensive enough, or should we add other elements to give it more teeth, to strengthen it?

[Brandon Silver]

I had a few proposed amendments to present. I think that, in some respects, this is also a matter of interpretation, and that clearer definitions—such as those regarding sanctions against family members of someone who is sanctioned—could be helpful.

I therefore want to reiterate our position that we must go further with regard to immediate family members than we do with regard to dependent family members, as our allies have done. The courts have made many rulings. We must not be afraid that this will end up in court.

This has already been the subject of legal proceedings in the United States, the European Union, and Canada. It is possible to review the rulings that have been issued in third-party democratic countries.

We have a corpus of global case law that can inform these interpretations and evidence, so I would encourage a more expansive approach to the definition of family members. This will protect our own sovereignty and economy from the corrosive effects of this corrupt foreign capital.

In addition, I would underscore the rights of families. It's incredibly important that we take a victim-centric approach. As counsel to political prisoners, hostages, family members.... The common thread in all of these cases is that they want more public action and the ability to engage with the government in that regard. Having some embedded protections in the legislation that would encourage and allow for that, I think, would be most welcome.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

What we don't like is having symbolic bills or laws.

Do you think there was a lack of legislative measures, or rather a lack of will, to ensure that this kind of situation is actually enforced more effectively? Was the shortcoming legislative in nature, or was it due to a lack of will on the part of the government?

[Brandon Silver]

I think that, for action to be effective, we need both. The more tools we have at our disposal, the more the government can commit to taking action.

The rhetorical value of legislation creates the context that can catalyze action, but having the correct tools in a more narrow, procedural sense and in a substantive sense goes well beyond rhetoric. The rhetoric's important, and some of the symbolic aspects of this law are essential, but it goes beyond symbolism. It changes some of the triggering thresholds for the implementation of sanctions. It embeds the definition of prisoners of conscience within reporting requirements.

There are a lot of highly substantive and procedural additions in this law that will not only empower action but also, it is hoped, encourage more of the discretionary movement that you've alluded to.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Thank you very much.

We will go next to MP Brunelle-Duceppe. You have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Silver, good morning again. We're going to give you a VIP pass for the committee, since you're often here with us. I think that when it comes to Bill C‑219, your expertise is clear, given the work your organization does, of course.

I'd like to ask you about some specific points. I'll perhaps wrap up with some broader questions at the end. I spoke with representatives from the department a little earlier. The bill is based on the annual report, which would include the disclosure of information to raise awareness about prisoners of conscience and political prisoners.

In your experience, could the disclosure of information about prisoners put their families at risk?

[Brandon Silver]

Each case is different, and it always boils down to determining whether sharing the information will help the situation or harm it.

We're seeing greater instances of transnational repression against family members and those seeking to support political prisoner cases, whether it's the counsel of prisoners of conscience being targeted or their family members. This is a rising trend, so it's an important question.

Ultimately, the release and dissemination of information provide a protective cover, and it should be up to the family members whether this information is released. I believe this bill already embeds the correct safeguards. There's a mention of exceptions if the minister feels this information shouldn't be disclosed, or that it could cause harm if it were; however, by default, more public reporting can be helpful. We've found cases in which it has, more often than not, led to release.

There is a critical mass of pressure on the imprisoning regimes that encourages them to realize that it would cost them more to keep this prisoner of conscience in prison than it would to release them.

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

I agree with you, having participated publicly in several efforts regarding various cases and having often taken part in press conferences where all recognized parties in the House united to support a specific case. Examples would be Vladimir Kara‑Mourza, but also Raif Badawi or Jimmy Lai, among others.

That said, I have serious concerns about the text, and, frankly, that is the purpose of the meetings we are currently holding. I am not in favour of one option or the other, but what we currently have in the text leaves it up to the minister to decide whether to disclose information.

Shouldn't we instead recommend a model based on the prior consent of the families before the minister has a say? Shouldn't it be up to the families to decide whether such information should be made public?

This is not currently included in Bill C‑219, and I was wondering whether it would be worth adding it through an amendment.

[Brandon Silver]

First of all, I would like to thank you for your commitment to all these prisoners of conscience around the world, and for your contribution to cases where prisoners were released or their conditions were improved.

As I referred to in my opening statement, the perspectives of those victims imprisoned abroad and their family members should be the driving force of this. A victim-centred approach would be the most appropriate. It would shift the burden from what the minister may feel should be done in a particular case, regardless of family concerns. If the family wants the information to be made public and wants certain government interventions, the family's wishes should be the default. They should even be allowed to apply for a mandamus to compel government action.

This would suggest, perhaps, that some Canadians could have gone home even sooner if the government had decided to speak out earlier.

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

Thank you very much.

I'd like to ask you a slightly broader question.

You mentioned countries that do things differently. In what ways would Bill C‑219 bring us closer to the best—or worst—practices currently in place internationally? I get the impression that it would bring us closer to the best practices.

[Brandon Silver]

I am proud that the Canadian Parliament, in a multipartisan way, is not following our allies.

We lead. I found that, in Vladimir Kara-Murza's case, other countries followed what Canada did. We were the first to implement sanctions in the case of arbitrary detention. We were the first country to give him honorary citizenship.

Yes, our allies are doing things that can be reflected in legislation, as I suggested, when it comes to the definition of immediate family, for example. However, I think we can go beyond that. This is an opportunity for Canada to be a leader in global Magnitsky sanctions. The bill, as it stands, makes important contributions in that regard.

Some of the suggested amendments are the kinds of things that, apropos of previous questions about the rise of global hostage taking, can help ensure that Canada is a leader in that. Such amendments include adding prisoners of conscience to TNR, given that the term “prisoners of conscience” is already in the bill, and having the arbitrary detention of Canadians abroad be a triggering threshold.

The public reporting requirements are essential. Other countries are doing some good things on that. The U.S., in a bipartisan way, has pursued a lot of important legislation and executive orders in that regard. We can go beyond that and encourage the world to follow Canada's leadership, as we did in the Kara-Murza case, in a multipartisan way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Thank you very much.

I will start a lightning round of three minutes each, beginning with MP Ziad Aboultaif.

You have three minutes.