Foreign Affairs Committee on May 7th, 2026

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Thank you.

Mr. Silver, welcome to the committee again.

Regarding the existing sanctions regime in Canada, what is your view on the procedure for sanctioning entities with demonstrated acts of transnational repression?

Do you believe the existing sanction system in Canada is effective enough? Where are we vulnerable in the whole process?

[Brandon Silver]

Well, there's been a question of enforcement in Canada's current sanctions laws. On a per capita basis, Canada is one of the leaders in sanctions implementation, but we are lacking in enforcement.

One of the suggestions of the bill that would help to fill those gaps and deficiencies is about how sanctioned individuals often evade those sanctions by using their family members. By adding in visa bans on immediate family members, we're helping to close some of those gaps. That's one easy reference in terms of gaps in existing legislation that this law helps to fill.

Also, when it comes to transnational repression, some of the specific acts enumerated may not be covered under the current law. This would both ensure that the tools are there and encourage government action to use them.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Do you see any fundamental reasons that we would be prevented from going further on strengthening the sanctions system, especially on the implementation part of it?

[Brandon Silver]

No, and this didn't get much reference in some of the earlier exchanges, but I want to specifically point out the part of Bill C-219 that mandates government responses to requests for sanctions from the committee. That is an important act of transparency.

It has a parallel to existing frameworks in the Magnitsky law. Currently, parliamentarians can pass a motion to repeal sanctions but can't pass a motion to implement sanctions. There's a bit of incongruity there. I think this bill helps to fix that and makes sure that parliamentarians can encourage the government to do this.

I would add that it doesn't put a significant burden on the government. It's enshrining in legislation what can potentially be done creatively with Order Paper questions, but in a much more transparent and democratically oriented way. This parallels existing sanctions removal mechanisms in the current legislation.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Thank you very much.

We go next to MP Clark.

You have three minutes.

[Braedon Clark, Liberal, Sackville—Bedford—Preston, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Silver, thank you for being here today. Your organization has been dealing with these issues for well over a decade—a long time—and I congratulate you on all the work you've done in this regard.

In the previous hour, we touched a bit on the terms “prisoners of conscience”—the term used in Bill C-219—and “human rights defenders”. You may have heard that there was some discussion about the fact that perhaps “human rights defenders” is a term that might capture individuals who would otherwise be excluded under this legislation.

I'm wondering if you have a point of view on those terms and how we might balance them to be most effective.

[Brandon Silver]

Thank you very much, both for your kind words and for your very incisive question.

I would only comment, in relation to some of the discussions about “human rights defenders” versus “prisoners of conscience”, that all human rights defenders arbitrarily detained abroad are prisoners of conscience under the definitions that were proposed, but not all prisoners of conscience are human rights defenders. I would assert that the definition of “prisoner of conscience” is broader and better suits the intentions of the bill and of Canada's human rights foreign policy.

I'll give you two concrete examples of cases we've worked on as an institution, which would be excluded if the definition were shifted from “prisoner of conscience” to “human rights defender”. First, we've represented members of the Baha'i faith, such as the Yaran, who are persecuted and imprisoned in Iran and Yemen, for example. They self-describe as prisoners of conscience. They do not engage in human rights defender activity. They would be excluded.

In another example, Canada has been an important leader when it comes to protecting LGBTQ persons. Just three days ago, a group of LGBT people were imprisoned in Russia. They would be excluded if the definition were changed to “human rights defenders”. People who are targeted simply for immutable characteristics and their identity would be covered under “prisoners of conscience”. They would likely not be covered under “human rights defenders”.

[Braedon Clark, Liberal, Sackville—Bedford—Preston, NS]

I appreciate that.

I have a short period of time, but I wanted to ask quickly about transnational repression as well. This concept has become more prominent in recent years. In your view, what's proposed in this bill and how does it compare and contrast with what peer countries might be doing? Is there anything that you would like to see added or adjusted on that issue in particular?

[Brandon Silver]

This is a nascent area of growing concern. Like our sanctions legislation more broadly, it gives an opportunity for Canada to lead. It is hoped that the specific acts enumerated in this bill and in the definition would give the government greater authority to take action in these types of situations.

There are important G7 statements that were initiated by Canada, the compendium that was put together under Canada's chairmanship of the G7 and a further joint statement, led by Canada, of 14 countries about transnational repression targeting human rights defenders, Jewish citizens and former ministers, including the founder and chair of our centre. Therefore, there might be an opportunity there, when this legislation is further considered, to coordinate with allies.

This bill makes important amendments. There's reference to working with allies. It references NATO, for example. The proactive use of this legislation to counter TNR can be done unilaterally, and it should be, but particularly in concert with allies. We could be leading in NATO and in the G7, as we have on TNR as a thematic concept, to ensure coordination of sanctions implementations with allies.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Thank you very much.

We go, finally, to Monsieur Brunelle-Duceppe.

You have three minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Silver, I'm going to ask you a question. After that, if you would like to add any comments with the remaining time, you're welcome to do so.

Currently, you operate in a certain way when it comes to representing political prisoners or prisoners of conscience. If Bill C‑219 is passed, as we hope it will, how will that change your work and how you represent these individuals, whether politically, in the media or legally? What will change for you?

[Brandon Silver]

It really will be a game-changer in shifting public conceptions around arbitrary detention, whether it's of prisoners of conscience globally or of Canadians in particular. The greater transparency that this will inject into processes is something that we can leverage to improve prison conditions for prisoners and even help secure their freedom.

I would encourage that the prisoner of conscience definition in public reporting be embedded into the sanctions triggers as well and that some of the public reporting even be expanded, as we've suggested. The bill itself adds important transparency, democratic principles that could be leveraged in individual representation and in those emblematic cases in which the freedom of one person can have a positive impact in encouraging the freedom of so many others whose cases and causes they represent—as Jimmy Lai and Vladimir Kara-Murza did.

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

This could then serve as a model for other friendly countries that wish to achieve the same goals that we would achieve with Bill C‑219.

[Brandon Silver]

Yes, very much so. Canada has played a leadership role in many regards. This is a chance for us to do so again.

It's encouraging that the work of this committee, whether it's been on previous iterations of the Magnitsky law—the first one and then its amendments—or on countering arbitrary detention and hostage taking, advocating for political prisoners.... These have been rare issues, not only of agreement but also of unanimity. The Magnitsky law was passed unanimously in 2017. The honorary citizenship for Vladimir Kara-Murza was adopted unanimously. Mr. Lai's case was supported unanimously. These are issues of common cause that bring Canadians together and that reflect your own leadership in having come together on this. It's very gratifying for us, as civil society organizations, to see that.

I hope that here too, Bill C-219 will be a place of coming together for the sake of global justice and human rights.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Thank you very much. On behalf of the committee, I want to thank you for your appearance and for your answers to the questions.

We will now briefly suspend in order to go in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]