Foreign Affairs Committee on May 7th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Thank you very much. We'll go back to Mr. Oliphant.

You have five minutes.

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

Thank you again.

I want to get into the parts of the bill that I understand the least and know the least about. They are clauses 8, 9, 16 and 17 with respect to FINTRAC, RCMP, information sharing and those requirements.

I don't know the current state of information sharing that happens. What are we lacking at Global Affairs that could help with the sanctions impositions, and what potential problems could this cause?

[Robert Brookfield]

Obviously, FINTRAC and RCMP aren't here. I'll do my best to pass on what I understand to be their perspectives on this. From the Global Affairs perspective, we work very closely with FINTRAC and RCMP.

There are very tight authorities under FINTRAC on what they can report and not. In fact, they recently set a fine of $175 million against a cryptocurrency exchange in B.C., in part based on its failure to do sanctions reporting.

They do a very important job, but they're not a law enforcement tool. They have very limited constraints, for charter and constitutional reasons. This particular provision is problematic for them, as it is for the RCMP, in that it requires that they take on a role of judge, in a sense, which is not their role. The RCMP has the same concerns.

Similarly, for the RCMP, we work closely with them on the enforcement side, but they don't assess the policy question of whether, for example, individuals are committing genocide.

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

It would seem to be quite difficult. I turned my clock back to a time when I was in opposition. Unfortunately, we had cases in which the RCMP relayed information with respect to Canadians, who were incarcerated in Syria based on incorrect information from the RCMP. That information was not shared appropriately. There were consequences for the government at that time, and reparations were made.

I'm very worried about giving any sort of non-enforcement or non-operational activity to those two agencies, which really are enforcement agencies. They can have red flags, as you say. They can assert that there is an issue that needs sanction attention, but do they have experience in determining sanctions and when sanctions should be placed?

[Robert Brookfield]

No, they do not.

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

I don't misunderstand this bill, then, probably. I thought I was not getting it, because it seems to me that we don't have the Ontario Provincial Police or city police doing recommendations on certain things. They have an activity they're responsible for within their legislation and within the separation of government from policing operations or from an independent arm of government such as FINTRAC. I'm not mistaking this.

[Robert Brookfield]

No. The RCMP, like the Department of National Defence, CSIS and other intelligence agencies, provides information that can be the basis for our activities, but they don't make decisions. That's the Minister of Foreign Affairs—

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

Sure. We must get.... The CSE, CSIS, RCMP and FINTRAC are all sources of information, but the decision-making activity would be at Global Affairs Canada.

[Robert Brookfield]

In fact, it would be with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, specifically, and cabinet.

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

On your recommendation to an order in council....

[Robert Brookfield]

Yes.

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

Okay. That's all.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Thank you very much.

Next, we'll go to Monsieur Brunelle-Duceppe.

You have two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Witnesses, do you have any examples of what is being done internationally on this type of legislative measure?

Have you done any research to determine whether such measures exist internationally and, if so, to find out what works well and what does not for countries like Canada?

Obviously, I am not referring to countries with authoritarian governments that control information.

[Robert Brookfield]

As I pointed out, the United States, the United Kingdom and even South Korea have human rights-related tools to impose broader sanctions. They are not linked to a specific country.

I don’t know if my colleagues can speak to the human rights reports or other matters related to other aspects of the law.

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

One of the concerns we raised relates to the Broadcasting Act, which is part of Bill C‑219, or to the annual report.

Is this done in other countries? That isn’t a trick question. I’m genuinely asking for information.

[Robert Brookfield]

Judging by my colleagues’ reactions, the short answer is no, based on what we know. I apologize for that.

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

Okay.

[Charlene Budnisky]

I don't have an answer at this time. I will have to do a bit of research on that.

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

We, too, must get to work. Sometimes we count on you to do our work for us, but, clearly, we’ll have to do our own research.

Since the start of today's meeting, I get the sense that you are extremely reluctant about the entire text of Bill C‑219. That said, many members of Parliament supported this bill to make sure it would be sent to our committee.

Isn’t there a disconnect between the people working at the department—that is, you—and the members of Parliament who decided to send this bill to the committee?

[Robert Brookfield]

Yes, perhaps. Many of the details we haven't discussed today pertain to procedural matters, particularly reporting.

We already have a lot of internal consultations, research and collaboration with our allies to gather the information we need to prepare for each case. Any additional steps on top of that make our lives more difficult.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Thank you very much for your appearances and testimony today. It's very much appreciated by all of us.

We will now briefly suspend the hearing in order to prepare for our next panel.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

I call this meeting to order.

I would now like to welcome our witness for the second panel.

From the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights, we have Brandon Silver, director of policy and projects.

Welcome. I now invite you to make an opening statement of up to five minutes, please.

Thank you.

[Brandon Silver, Director of Policy and Projects, Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights]

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Thank you. We will have to conclude. Thank you so much for your statement.

We will begin the period of questions with MP Bezan. You have six minutes.