Foreign Affairs Committee on June 11th, 2026

[Robert Brookfield, Director General, Sanctions and Strategic Export Controls, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development]

I am not the expert on international diplomatic law, but I can say that, in general terms, this issue was also raised in the other place, in a related bill.

There is a spectrum of property that can be owned by a government. Some of it can be commercial and may be subject to certain activities, but some of it is of a more “state” nature. The most classic example is diplomatic property, but there are others. Central banks are another question. It would be a violation of public international law to have seizures of that property.

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

The example sent to me was this: The official residence of an ambassador, or an embassy, would be protected. It would be a complex thing under the Vienna Convention. It would be a different understanding, so we would like to stick to the basic point: 24 months, as opposed to 12. It would remain just “private”.

We will be voting against the subamendment.

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

To get this clarification, I will ask Mr. Brookfield, if I may, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Go ahead.

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

The Russian central bank holds something like $20 billion in Canadian currency, which we understand is not considered, right now, to be usable by them. It's one thing that has been sanctioned. At the same time, we're forcing any forfeiture of that asset. It still belongs to the Russian central bank.

It's as Mr. Oliphant said. We have a court case in Ontario. The Ontario Superior Court ordered compensation for the victims of Ukrainian International Airlines flight PS752. As you know, over 55 Canadian citizens were killed, most of them of Iranian descent. Permanent residents were also on that flight. Some of those assets are the Iranian embassy, offices and residences they have in Toronto, Vancouver and here in Ottawa.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier—Gloucester, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

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

Those would not qualify for forfeiture.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Go ahead, MP Fortier.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier—Gloucester, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I recognize the importance of this private member's bill and the desire to advance certain ideas. The problem is that the subamendment was not received in both official languages or explained.

I think we were discussing the amendment. So I'm wondering about the procedure at this stage. Honestly, I'm a bit confused. I just want to know a little bit about the procedure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

I will turn to the legislative clerk for an answer to that.

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

Mr. Chair, on the same point of order, it is procedurally in form for a member to introduce amendments or subamendments orally during the clause-by-clause process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

My understanding is that the member can do that. The issue is that after the member does that....

Unless there is an agreement to withdraw the subamendment, we have the option of suspending, and—

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier—Gloucester, ON]

Mr. Chair, that's when I'll have more information in writing so I can fully understand the subamendment. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

I will suspend briefly so that we can—

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

I'll withdraw it. Robert has already said that you guys are voting against it, and I don't want to lose time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Okay. That was part of what I was trying to measure, to see if it was necessary.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier—Gloucester, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

We'll go back to amendment G-4.1.

(Amendment agreed to on division)

We are now on G-4.2.

Do we have any comments or debate?

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

Yes.

Continuing on with clause 6, we propose to add an exemption to the prior proposed subsection in clause 6 in order to accommodate due process concerns. We want to ensure that this is feasible and doable, as in the above proposed subsection, recognizing, however, that “do not apply in cases in respect of which legal proceedings are ongoing” would not put the minister in conflict with the law.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Are there any other comments on G-4.2?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

I would like to ask for direction and agreement from members. There is a vote in 28 minutes and 54 seconds. I'm asking for the permission that would allow us to continue until such time as we can vote from our phones.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Thank you.

(Clause 6 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 7)

We are at amendment G-4.3.

Do we have any comments or debate?

Go ahead, Mr. Oliphant.

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

Yes.

G-4.3 is our written amendment. It moves to amend clause 7 in Bill C-219 by deleting line 32 on page 4 all the way through to the end of line 29 on page 5.

I will just say that we support the aligning of the tabling timelines at the beginning of the clause, but we're proposing the deletion of this. We think it would require that a new statement accompany every tabling of a sanctions order regulation, including the evidence or criteria used, enforcement details, coordination with allies and the number of properties seized or frozen.

We have proposed a deletion of this clause, which would have required that a response to the recommendation of a committee be provided. We can give a policy rationale, but we are attempting a fairly large deletion on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ahmed Hussen]

Do members have any comments or debate on that?

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

Mr. Chair, we don't support the removal of that. We don't support the amendment.

I'll just leave it at that.

(Amendment agreed to on division)