FAAE meeting 40 · 2026-06-11 — Committee Evidence — LegisWatch

Summary

The committee met to conduct clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-219, an act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law), the Special Economic Measures Act and the Broadcasting Act. Officials from the Canada Border Services Agency, the Department of Canadian Heritage, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, and the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development appeared to assist members.

Matthew Sharp, from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, explained that a proposed amendment to expand the definition of “immediate family member” for visa bans would be ineffective because the bill does not address admissibility under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. He noted that Bill S-8, passed in 2023, already introduced an inadmissibility provision covering sanctions legislation, and argued that sanctioning individuals through sanctions legislation would be a more effective tool to prevent travel to Canada than the proposed visa-based approach.

Robert Brookfield, from the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, addressed a subamendment that sought to include government or public property in forfeiture provisions. He stated that international law distinguishes between private and state property, with diplomatic property and central bank assets being protected from seizure, and that including public property could violate public international law. He did not directly disagree with any witness but provided technical context on the legal limits of forfeiture.

Charlene Budnisky, from the Department of Canadian Heritage, commented on an amendment to the Broadcasting Act that would require the Governor in Council to direct the CRTC to remove state-controlled broadcasters from foreign states that have committed grave breaches of international peace and security. She argued that the CRTC lacks the expertise to assess matters such as war crimes and human rights abuses, and that the CRTC already has tools to address compliance issues with licensed broadcasters. She disagreed with the amendment’s premise, noting that the CRTC can issue orders, monitor, and impose penalties without direct cabinet intervention.

The committee debated and voted on numerous amendments, with the government side moving several amendments to adjust reporting timelines, forfeiture procedures, and the short title of the Special Economic Measures Act. The government successfully amended clause 2 to change reporting requirements, clause 4 to expand grounds for sanctions, and clauses 6, 13, 15, and 18 to extend forfeiture timelines and add legal proceedings exemptions. Clause 5 was negatived on division, and clauses 10, 16, 17, 23, and 24 were also negatived. An amendment from the Conservative Party to add a new clause on state-controlled broadcasters was defeated. The committee agreed to hold consideration of the short title and preamble for a future meeting to ensure consistency with earlier amendments.

AI-generated summary — may contain errors; verify against the official evidence.

Witnesses · 3

Matthew Sharp

Assistant Director, Admissibility Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration

Opening remarks

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The challenge we see with this is that the bill, as worded, talks of visas and documents, but it doesn't speak to admissibility, which is ultimately the heart of how we enforce the IRPA. My colleague, Mr. Bush, can speak more to that. This government passed Bill S-8 in 2023, which introduced a new inadmissibility provision that covers all of the sanctions legislation. That's the Sergei Magnitsky Law, as well as the Special Economic Measures Act, which makes people who are sanctioned inadmissible to Canada. If we were to deny a visa.... Suppose, looking at this list of relatives, we were to miss somebody somehow. For example, H is a foreign national who resides permanently with the foreign national in question. They could come to Canada, and we would lack an ability to enforce against that person because that person wouldn't actually be inadmissible under the IRPA. As a result, we would propose that sanctioning these individuals through the sanctions legislation would be a more effective tool to prevent their travel to Canada.

Full testimony ↗

Robert Brookfield

Director General, Sanctions and Strategic Export Controls, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development

Opening remarks

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.

Foreign Affairs and International Development

Summary

Witnesses · 3

Bills mentioned