The House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development met to study Bill C-219, an act to amend various laws concerning sanctions, human rights, and broadcasting. Appearing were officials from Global Affairs Canada, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, and Canadian Heritage, as well as a witness from the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights.
Robert Brookfield, Director General of Sanctions and Strategic Export Controls at Global Affairs Canada, said the bill advances objectives Canada supports but raises legal and operational concerns. He recommended removing rigid timelines for asset forfeiture and mandatory information-sharing requirements from the RCMP and FINTRAC, arguing they could undermine due process and intelligence handling. He also suggested the visa ban on immediate family members of sanctioned individuals is duplicative of existing immigration law and should be removed, and that the term “prisoners of conscience” should be replaced with the broader, internationally recognized term “human rights defenders.”
Tara Lang, Director General of Integrity Policy and Programs at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, argued against expanding the definition of “family member” for visa bans beyond the current Immigration and Refugee Protection Act definition of spouse and dependent children. She said visa officers cannot practically identify non-dependent relatives of sanctioned individuals, and that such individuals should instead be sanctioned individually to avoid Charter implications and administrative confusion.
Angelica Liao-Moroz, Executive Director of Human Rights, Freedoms and Inclusion at Global Affairs Canada, explained that the term “human rights defenders” is preferred because it focuses on peaceful advocacy activities rather than custodial status, and is more inclusive of journalists, Indigenous leaders, and others. She said the department would be open to including “prisoners of conscience” as a subcategory, but stressed that a blanket requirement to list individual cases in an annual report could endanger detainees and that a focus on broader strategic priorities and emblematic cases would be safer.
Kati Csaba, Director General of Consular Affairs at Global Affairs Canada, warned that publicly naming Canadian citizens detained abroad in an annual report could jeopardize consular access and put those individuals at greater risk. She noted that the Privacy Act prevents family members from authorizing disclosure of a consular client’s information, and that strategic, case-by-case public advocacy—as with the two Michaels—is more effective than a blanket reporting requirement.
Charlene Budnisky, Senior Director of Communication Legislative and Regulatory Policy at Canadian Heritage, said the bill’s Broadcasting Act amendments apply only to licensed Canadian broadcasters, not to online media or non-Canadian programming services on the CRTC’s authorized distribution list. She raised concerns that the term “vulnerable to significant influence” is ambiguous and could have a chilling effect on freedom of expression, and noted that removing a service like RT required a CRTC hearing under a ministerial directive, not automatic revocation.
Brandon Silver, Director of Policy and Projects at the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights, strongly supported the bill, calling it a game-changer for transparency and deterrence. He disagreed with officials on several points: he argued the visa ban should cover a broader definition of immediate family members, as in the U.S. and EU, to close loopholes; he said “prisoners of conscience” is a broader and more protective term than “human rights defenders,” covering those persecuted for identity rather than advocacy; and he recommended that public reporting be victim-centric, with families able to demand disclosure, and that arbitrary detention of Canadians be added as a stand-alone sanctionable offence.
The committee did not debate procedural motions or votes during this meeting.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors; verify against the official evidence.