Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
It's a pleasure for me to testify on Bill C‑219. I want to thank MP James Bezan for introducing this important bill, as well as the government for its general support. This approach reflects the spirit of consensus that characterized the initial passage of the Magnitsky Act in 2017.
Indeed, the founder of our institution, Professor Irwin Cotler, first proposed Magnitsky legislation, Bill C-339, as a parliamentarian in 2011. In 2013, he co-founded and headed the Justice for Sergei Magnitsky Inter-Parliamentary Group. In 2015, he proposed a unanimous consent motion, which was adopted, calling for Magnitsky legislation. Again in 2015, he proposed a global Magnitsky bill. In 2016, he offered emphatic support for the important legislation spearheaded by Senator Andreychuk and MP James Bezan. We are pleased to offer strong support and endorsement of Bill C-219.
I will focus my remarks on what we consider to be some of the particularly essential elements of this bill.
First, changing the short title of the Special Economic Measures Act to the Sergei Magnitsky global sanctions act not only honours the sacrifice of Sergei Magnitsky but reflects the reality of our sanctions regime. Human rights violations and corruption would not be sanctionable offences under SEMA if not for the adoption of the 2017 Magnitsky law amendments. Of the 1,042 human rights sanctions implemented by Canada since these amendments in 2017, 962 of them are under SEMA, so 92% of our country's Magnitsky-style human rights sanctions are not actually implemented under the Magnitsky law.
Over 35 countries now have a Magnitsky act. Therefore, in an increasingly dangerous and divided world, this simple title change will help streamline collaboration and end confusion amongst our allies and civil society around the world. It also reflects the reality of how the Canadian government has implemented our human rights sanctions frameworks thus far.
Second, expanding visa bans to immediate family members fills an important gap in current legislation. Grave human rights abusers often like to send their families abroad to enjoy the freedoms that they deny their citizens at home. This legislation would close the door on their family members' enjoying the banks, businesses and beaches in Canada and thereby also protect our sovereignty from the corrupt and corrosive effect of this foreign capital. It enhances our national security and the integrity of our banking systems, protects our borders and is in line with what our allies have integrated into their sanctions legislation. In fact, it is somewhat narrower.
In response to what was shared earlier by the important and hard-working civil service leaders, I want to comment that their assertion around dependent family members does not reflect the practice of allies. The European Union has associated family members, which goes beyond dependents, and the United States also goes beyond dependent family members. I would encourage the committee to therefore go beyond defining immediate family members as only those who are dependent.
Third, the provision on prisoners of conscience will provide a life-saving spotlight to them. For the dissident suffering in the darkness of a dictator's dungeon, this legislation would shine a light on their case that could help secure their freedom. Vladimir Kara-Murza's new-found freedom from Putin's gulags provides a case study. Giving public disclosures surrounding advocacy on his case, working with his wife Evgenia and undertaking efforts such as sanctioning the officials responsible for his unjust imprisonment, as well as our ambassador's holding a press conference on the steps of the courthouse during his unfair trial and granting him honorary Canadian citizenship, helped free him. I commend the essential work of this committee, done in a multipartisan way, that helped ensure that he is alive and free today.
Upon his release, Vladimir Kara-Murza, like all prisoners of conscience we have advocated for, told us that these public activities from governments and parliaments kept him alive. It told him, and it told his jailers, that he was not forgotten.
Beyond individual cases, the prisoner of conscience provision is essential for data and deterrence. GAC's annual consular report makes no mention of arbitrary detention and hostage taking. A Canadian prisoner of conscience is lumped together with a murderer, thereby equating crimes committed against Canadians by foreign states with crimes committed by Canadians in foreign states.
If there were clear metrics about the detention of prisoners of conscience and, particularly, Canadians held abroad, this would inform the travel decisions of Canadians and could even lighten the load on the consular affairs that they refer to. Perhaps fewer Canadians would travel to the jurisdictions in which there are rising rates of prisoners of conscience. It could be helpful for Canadians to have this information at hand.