I think I'm going to have a different opinion from many of the speakers today. I will preface this by saying that I work as a criminal defence lawyer in Vancouver in addition to my international human rights law practice.
The Magnitsky law's preamble equally emphasizes the rule of law and human rights. The rule of law is not just ensuring equality before the law. It's making sure that when we dole out punishments, they're going only to the people who deserve it. I think the provision as drafted runs the risk of a collective punishment or guilt by association argument, particularly with respect to the exemption.
The exemption, as I understand it, is where the minister “has reasonable grounds to believe” that the family member received no “material or financial benefit”. I see that as a safeguard, but it's essentially structured as an opt-out rather than a principled legal threshold. To improve this section, I think you could require the minister to have some positive grounds that these family members did receive some sort of material benefit. As currently drafted, the onus runs the opposite way. It makes these family members prove their innocence rather than have the minister demonstrate the basis for this restriction.
This isn't just my opinion. I think the current drafting would be quite difficult to justify under Canadian law and under our international human rights obligations as well.