THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 31, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade met with videoconference this day at 11:30 a.m. [ET] to study Bill S-217, An Act respecting the repurposing of certain seized, frozen or sequestrated assets.
Senator Peter M. Boehm (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, my name is Peter Boehm. I’m a senator from Ontario and the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
Before we begin, I wish to introduce the committee members participating in today’s meeting: Senator Gwen Boniface from Ontario; Senator Mary Coyle from Nova Scotia; Senator Marty Deacon from Ontario; Senator Amina Gerba from Quebec; Senator Stephen Greene from Nova Scotia; Senator Peter Harder, deputy chair of this committee, from Ontario; Senator Michael MacDonald from Nova Scotia; Senator Mohamed-Iqbal Ravalia from Newfoundland and Labrador; Senator David Richards from New Brunswick; Senator Yuen Pau Woo from British Columbia. Also joining us today is Senator Ratna Omidvar, the sponsor of Bill S-217, who joins us as a witness.
I wish to welcome all of you, as well as people across the country who may be watching.
[Translation]
Today, we’re conducting a hybrid meeting. I’d like to remind senators and witnesses taking part by videoconference to please keep their microphones muted at all times, unless recognized by name by the chair.
I’ll ask senators to use the “raise hand” feature in order to be recognized. Those present here in the committee room can signal to the clerk, Ms. Lemay, their desire to ask questions or to comment.
Should any technical challenges arise, particularly in relation to interpretation, please let me or the clerk know and we’ll work to resolve the issue quickly.
Today, we’re continuing our consideration of Bill S-217, An Act respecting the repurposing of certain seized, frozen or sequestrated assets.
[English]
For the first hour, we have before us a panel of three distinguished witnesses. We welcome, as I mentioned, the sponsor of Bill S-217, our colleague the Honourable Ratna Omidvar; the President Emeritus of the University of Ottawa, the Honourable Allan Rock, who has also served as Minister of Justice, Solicitor General and Canada’s ambassador to the United Nations; and, finally, the chair of the World Refugee and Migration Council, the Honourable Lloyd Axworthy, who has served in cabinet, most notably as Minister of Foreign Affairs, during which time, in fact, he and I worked together very closely.
Thank you for joining us. Before we move to opening statements, I wish to remind members that we have only one panel of witnesses today. At the conclusion of this panel, we will move immediately to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.
Senator Omidvar, you have the floor.
Hon. Ratna Omidvar, sponsor of the bill: Honourable senators, thank you for the invitation to address this committee, and thank you for the attention you paid to this proposal last week.
In the past month, we have seen the world change. The brutality of the Russian invasion of Ukraine has called for swift and severe action by the world. And we have seen sanction regimes, such as taking Russia out of the SWIFT banking system, which no one would have thought conceivable a few weeks ago.
Recently, the government announced that Minister Freeland will join an international task force with the U.S., the U.K. and others to commit to:
. . . working together to take all available legal steps to find, restrain, freeze, seize, and, where appropriate, confiscate or forfeit the assets of those individuals and entities that have been sanctioned in connection with Russia’s premeditated, unjust, and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine and the continuing aggression of the Russian regime.
The frozen assets repurposing act, or FARA, as proposed in Bill S-217, would provide that legal basis and that legal tool to help hold dictators, human-rights abusers and kleptocrats accountable for their actions.
Since time is short, I want to discuss some aspects that came up in discussion last week. First, yes, the preamble of the bill places emphasis on the forcibly displaced as a significant reason for this effort. However, I would point out that clause 6, the enabling clause for grounds to seize and repurpose frozen assets, is much broader than just forcible displacement. Other factors, such as corruption, mass human-rights abuses, extrajudicial killings, can also lead to this action. The goal here is to ensure that other deplorable acts are also captured.
Also, we know as senators that enabling clauses provide the true teeth to a bill, not the preamble.
Second, it is true that most sanctions regimes seek to influence a change in behaviour. But I would like to point out that when SEMA, the Special Economic Measures Act, was enacted in 1992, the government made the point that it is much more than behaviour change. I will quote Barry Mawhinney, Legal Advisor to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who appeared before a committee in 1992 and said that SEMA was to “bring home to another government the real costs of pursuing unacceptable behaviour.”
In the case of FARA, it provides the real cost to bureaucrats who have stolen from the public purse and brought disaster and indignity on their own citizens. By confiscating and repurposing stolen assets to the victims, it is not inconceivable that such an action could lead to a chilling effect on other oligarchs who may change their behaviour. More significantly in the case of Russia and Putin, oligarchs could conceivably come together collectively or individually to change behaviour because of the influence they hold over Putin.
But this law, honourable senators, is not just about behaviour change. It is about justice, and it is about justice, significantly. Victims of corruption suffer the indignity of losing their homes, their lives, their opportunities, their security, while oligarchs swan around in their mansions in London or on yachts anchored off the coast of Italy. Repurposing the assets to victims squares the circle without necessarily removing the lever of behaviour change.
Third, there was discussion about other similar legislation around the world which would put an emphasis on returning assets to the country of origin. That makes sense in some cases, and FARA provides for that, but it makes little sense to return money to the regime which is corrupted, which has committed human-rights abuses, if there is no regime change. Let’s think of Venezuela, for instance. There is really no significant purpose in repurposing the funding back to a corrupt regime. In the meantime, people who suffer need support and justice. FARA allows for that flexibility.
Fourth, when it comes to the competency of the courts to handle this legislation, I would remind you what Senator Dalphond, former Quebec judge, said at second reading in the chamber:
On substance, Bill S-217 is nothing to fear. The concepts are already well established in our domestic law relating to the proceeds of crime, such as in the Seized Property Management Act. . . .
In conclusion, colleagues, for far too long, corrupt foreign officials have acted with impunity. Calling them out is not enough. We have to make them pay. FARA would accomplish precisely that. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Senator Omidvar. We will move on to the Honourable Allan Rock. You have the floor.
Hon. Allan Rock, P.C., President Emeritus, University of Ottawa, as an individual: Thank you, chair and honourable senators. I am grateful for the opportunity to address the committee today. I wish to make five points about the bill before you.
First, in my respectful view, Bill S-217 is a valid exercise of federal constitutional jurisdiction. In pith and substance, it has nothing to do with the role of provinces in our federation, everything to do with international relations. It draws on the same federal constitutional power used to create the sanctions regime in the first place. It adds to the tools available to the Government of Canada in conducting our foreign policy. It aims to achieve a purpose intimately related to Canada’s role in the world, and in my respectful view, it falls squarely within the national concern doctrine under the peace, order and good government clause in the Constitution Act of 1867.
Second, Bill S-217 does not undermine the independence or impartiality of judges. It calls on them to do what judges do every day: to evaluate the merits of a court application; determine whether the facts before the court show that an evidentiary threshold has been reached; and accept, modify or reject a proposal made by the applicant as to how the assets should be repurposed. The court may also have a supervisory role in receiving reports as to the disposition of the assets to ensure compliance with the court order. In short, judges will be asked, as they are in every case before them, to apply the law to the facts and produce a just result.
Third, sanctions are not only to modify behaviour. They have many other valid purposes. As Professor Lilly said last week in her testimony here, sanctions can be imposed for any number of reasons, behavioural modification being but one. States may impose sanctions to satisfy their domestic audience that they are doing something, to communicate to another state a resolve and seriousness of purpose, to deter certain types of conduct or to punish.
Professor Lilly referred to the legal literature, including a paper published by Professor Kim Nossal of Queen’s University that examined sanctions as punishment, not for behavioural modification. In our case, the purpose of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, or FARA, is not simply to punish but also to deter; to tell the world that Canada will not be a safe haven for illicitly obtained assets; and to achieve a measure of justice for victims of the wrongdoers misconduct by using the assets to assist them.
Fourth, the Swiss model has demonstrated that repurposing can work well. To be clear, confiscation and repurposing here, as in Switzerland, are used only if an amicable return of the assets to the country of origin cannot be agreed on. Mutual legal assistance is given priority there as here. The ideal outcome would be to return the illicit assets to the country of origin and its people through negotiation, but if assets cannot be returned through mutual legal assistance, then the government, Swiss or Canadian, can apply to the court for approval of repurposing. The Swiss statute expressly encourages the participation of non-governmental organizations, or NGOs, in the proposal, and over $2 billion has been repurposed by Switzerland in this way, including through foundations for education, mine clearance and other objectives.
Fifth, Canada will not be alone in adopting such a regime. The Swiss model is already in place and functioning well. Others, like the United States, repurpose frozen assets by executive order. The FARA model follows the Swiss lead by involving the courts because such an approach is more consistent with due process and rule of law.
As to Canada being alone, consider the international task force, of which our Deputy Prime Minister is a member, created by the G7, and referred to by Senator Omidvar. There’s no suggestion here, by the way, that provinces should be involved in that international task force. The stated purpose of that task force is to examine circumstances in which assets that are frozen can be confiscated and repurposed, and if Canada is to achieve that, it will need the statutory authority that’s provided by Bill S-217.
Thank you, senators, and I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Rock. Mr. Axworthy, you now have a floor.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy, P.C., Chair, World Refugee and Migration Council, as an individual: It’s good to see you again, and I too welcome the opportunity to appear before the committee. To begin, I’d like to clearly associate myself with the comments that Senator Omidvar and Mr. Rock have just provided. I want to use my time to reinforce and bolster some of the key points that have been raised.
Right now, internationally, the time has come for serious and innovative responses to the cancerous impact of corruption. We have been working on this at the World Refugee and Migration Council, or WRMC, for over four or five years. We started our first inquiry in Tanzania in a refugee camp where we were told by the people there that so much of the money that had been dedicated to support basic health and educational services was being purloined by officials. Only a dribble of money actually went to the grassroots organizations where they were, and as a result, the ability to develop the capacity to support their basic rights and services was denied. That’s a common occurrence across the world.
In fact, the World Bank reported to us that over $20 billion of frozen assets sit in limbo annually. There is certainly an impact by freezing, but you can double that impact by seizing and repurposing. Our attention has been very much focused in Ukraine, as you’ve heard from the comments, and the number and scope of the sanctions that have been applied point to the direct connection between the corruption of oligarchs and the criminal activity of the Russian regime. There is a link. They are not separate. They work in tandem, and the result is disaster, violence and destruction.
As a result, there is an important leadership role that the Senate is now engaged in. The issue, as we reported in our initial study, is the importance of developing a way of holding people accountable. It’s not just about behaviour or even deterrence; it’s about accountability and holding them responsible. At the same time, we must realize funds are going to be absolutely necessary for the rebuilding and resetting of places like Ukraine. We’re talking about tens of billions of dollars of damage within the first four or five weeks of the invasion. We are talking about the displacement of over 4 million people.
Our interest as a council has clearly been on displaced persons and refugees, and we see that the international system is not capable right now of funding those reparations and those resets. The pledging system under the United Nations results sometimes in only 30% to 40% or assets being returned to enable people who have been victimized by these actions to find support and capability.
The point I want to make is that the legislation introduced by Senator Omidvar, who is a member of our council, provides an opportunity for Canada to show true leadership. From my own experience when I was in Global Affairs, I know that to get international agreement, reform and change, you need champions. You need a government or a group that is prepared to put forward innovative ideas. Our Minister of Foreign Affairs has talked about the need to convene. Convening also means creating, and the piece of legislation before the committee today is very creative. With the efforts of Senator Omidvar in persevering and bringing this to verge of passage in the Senate, this will be a major step forward.
As Mr. Rock has pointed out, the Deputy Prime Minister is now part of an international G7 group. Where will the ideas come from? Well, they will come from the deliberations and decisions that the Senate makes today.
Thank you for this consideration. Please understand that the step you take will be instrumental in enabling a further step forward to holding people accountable, punishing those who are criminals, and providing reparation and support for those who have been victimized. That in itself will be a major step in the reform of the international order, which is under such pressure today.
I thank you for your consideration. I will be more than happy to take your questions.
The Chair: I would like to thank all of our witnesses for their opening remarks. I would also like to acknowledge that Senator Victor Oh has joined us.
[Translation]
Before I open the floor to questions, I want to remind the committee members who are participating remotely to use the “raise hand” button to be added to the list managed by our clerk.
[English]
I also want to inform members that you will each have a maximum of four minutes for the first round, and that includes both questions and answers. Please indicate to whom you would like to direct your question. As you know, that timing means you need to be concise. We can always go to a second round if we have time.
I’d like to also acknowledge that Senator Leo Housakos of Quebec has just joined us in his ex-officio capacity as Acting Leader of the Official Opposition. Welcome, senator.
We will now go to questions.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank to our guests and witnesses for being here today. It’s a very important matter and quite timely.
It’s my understanding that, should this bill become law, it will be the courts that decide how to distribute any seized and forfeited assets. My initial thought would have been that by putting that decision on the government of the day as part of its court filing, instead you actually add an extra layer of responsibility and accountability.
What was the thought process on letting the courts decide how to distribute the assets rather than the government?
I’d ask this question first to Senator Omidvar, but I would welcome any of you to speak to this. Thank you.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you, Senator Deacon, for the question.
The foundation of the bill is not just justice; it’s also due process, transparency and accountability. In drafting the architecture of the bill, we were convinced that the Swiss process of using the courts to make the decision on the balance of probabilities after hearing from witnesses, including the owners or family of the assets or the government of the country in question, that we would actually get to a fair, accountable and supportable decision. That was the thinking behind inserting the courts into the process.
I think we all know that our courts act in a manner that is independent of political interference, and they have proven to do so again and again. I am very comfortable with this lever being deployed as opposed to leaving it up to any political motivations, as is the case in some other jurisdictions.
I don’t know if Allan or Lloyd would like to add to that.
Mr. Rock: I would just add to that excellent answer, with which I fully agree, that the way we envisaged this scheme working was that the Attorney General, on behalf of the government, would come to the court with a plan or proposal as to how the assets would be repurposed. Then the court would have that plan before it to consider, test, evaluate and hear from other parties in respect of it.
The courts would be making the order for the payment of the money out of court for a certain purpose, but they would presumably be doing so on the basis of what the government, through the Attorney General, has put before the court. We also assume the AG will consult cabinet colleagues before going forward, including the Minister of Foreign Affairs, to make sure that the application is consonant with our international position.
That’s how we saw it.
The Chair: Mr. Axworthy, did you want to respond?
Mr. Axworthy: I think those answers are more than adequate.
The Chair: Senator Deacon, you have less than a minute.
Senator M. Deacon: In that time, this might be a part B to that. If the court has made a determination that frozen assets should be seized and dispensed, is any registered charity in Canada eligible? Could a group of individuals be eligible? What are the parameters? Is it completely at the will of the courts?
I would give this question — this part B — to anyone who would like to answer.
The Chair: In 20 seconds.
Senator Omidvar: Very quickly, yes, the court has the capacity to repurpose the assets to a Canadian charity, an international charity or to an international/multinational organization like the UN or others. So, “yes.” That would be my quick answer.
The Chair: Thank you. We are moving on.
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much to our panellists this afternoon.
Mr. Rock, you have given us some comfort, particularly with the experience of the Swiss and the various other points that you made. Mr. Axworthy, as you have said, the time has come for a really serious initiative and an innovative response to that corruption and the associated criminality that you outlined.
I’d like to thank Senator Omidvar for her leadership, creativity and all her efforts and those of the other panellists have made in bringing this before us today for consideration.
I was actually going to ask the same question about the process that Senator Deacon asked, so I’ll just jump to the issue of amendments. Senator Omidvar, you’re aware that we will be considering a number of amendments to this legislation today. Could you speak to those amendments, as you have seen them, and give us your feedback on those?
Senator Omidvar: Thank you, Senator Coyle, for that question. I’m looking forward to weighing in on the amendments as a senator, not as a member of the committee, if I’m given the opportunity to do so.
There are five amendments that have been proposed that I know of.
The first is Senator Gerba’s amendment about giving the courts the flexibility to extricate 2.5% of the frozen assets to cover the costs that the Canadian court may incur. This lifts off the Swiss model. Senator Gerba’s amendment uses flexible language. It says “the court may;” it doesn’t say “the court shall.”
My opinion on that is that the committee should consider carefully that the 2.5% for covering off Canadian court costs is 2.5% less for the victims. Therefore, one should think carefully about Canada being associated with monies that have been tainted in different ways. But the committee in its wisdom shall decide.
Senator Coyle’s two amendments harmonize the language of FARA with other statutes that are at play — the three sanctions regimes, specifically SEMA. They arise, I believe, from the recommendations of Professor Meredith Lilly, who was, if I remember correctly, the director of policy for Prime Minister Harper. Senator Coyle’s amendments seek to make sure that the language between FARA and the other sanctioned regimes is harmonized. To that effect, because they strengthen the bill, I welcome that wholeheartedly. That is exactly the work the committee should do; it should examine the language of the bill, set it in context, et cetera. So I appreciate those amendments, and I support them.
Senator Woo’s amendments, limiting the scope of FARA to Magnitsky alone, is very problematic to me, because it limits the scope of the bill to one sanction regime only, which is Magnitsky. As an example, colleagues, I will share with you that, under Magnitsky, there are 30 Russian oligarchs who have been sanctioned as opposed to SEMA, which is a big, broad ship of sanctions, under which 800 Russian oligarchs have been sanctioned. That would severely limit the scope of justice that we are trying to achieve here.
I think my time is over.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Omidvar. I’m sure we’ll be coming back to those elements shortly.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you to our witnesses.
During her appearance before the committee on March 24, Professor Meredith Lilly noted that the list of conditions for imposing sanctions under Magnitsky and the Special Economic Measures Act differs from the list of conditions in clause 6 of Bill S-217, for which frozen assets can be ordered by a court to be repurposed.
For instance, she noted that being associated with having committed a grave breach of international peace and security that has resulted or is likely to result in a serious international crisis, a condition listed under SEMA that has been used to sanction more than 800 individuals over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, is not listed in Bill S-217 as a reason for repurposing.
Senator Omidvar, do some of these inconsistencies concern you, and do we need to be more judicious in the way that the actual bill is written currently?
Senator Omidvar: Thank you, Senator Ravalia, for the question.
This is precisely the kind of work that a Senate committee should do. The witnesses found inconsistencies. That particular inconsistency has been addressed or will be addressed by Senator Coyle’s amendment to the bill, therefore strengthening it.
I believe that you called expert witnesses who gave you their best advice. I hope that in the end, the bill, with these amendments, will be strengthened. I do not see any other inconsistencies at this point.
Senator Woo: My first question is to either Mr. Rock or Mr. Axworthy.
You have all mentioned the large swath of sanctions that have been posed on Russia since the war. All of this, of course, took place in the absence of Bill S-217.
May I ask, then, if you believe that there were any impediments to the imposition of sanctions against Russia that we have seen hitherto?
Mr. Axworthy: I think what you describe is really a layering, a building up. The sanctions that have been imposed, freeze. What Bill S-217 provides is a reallocation towards those who have been victimized, impacted or had their lives destroyed by these actions. Therefore, I think that it takes the impact of the sanctions to another level.
The fact that is now to be considered by the G7 as a broader international effort will put even more pressure and have a greater impact on the criminal state in Russia, and they will find that if the piggy banks no longer have pennies in them, they might find even more reason to try to come to grips with their criminality and responsibility.
Senator Woo: Thank you for that. What I take to be your point is that the assets have already been frozen and are therefore no longer accessible to the oligarchs and other sanctioned individuals.
The question before us in Bill S-217 is one of whether we want to make the sanctions already in place a tool principally of punishment or one of a compellence to change behavior. That is a legitimate question we are wrestling with, but that the sanctions are already in place and are inaccessible to Russia is a statement of fact. Would that be a correct summation?
Mr. Rock: It is a correct summation, senator, but it is not just either behavior modification or punishment.
As I mentioned in my opening, sanctions could be adopted in order to deter. In this case, Canada would be deterring corrupt foreign officials from parking their money in Canada, because we’re sending a signal that if they do, it is liable not only to be frozen but confiscated and repurposed. Furthermore, this legislation has another objective, which is to provide some measure of justice to those who have been damaged, hurt or disadvantaged by the wrongdoing in question.
Parliament, through the Senate or the House, can act for any number of reasons. In the case of FARA, there are a number of objectives that are relevant to and important to our foreign policy that are being achieved.
Senator Woo: Thank you for that.
Senator Omidvar, is it correct that the vast majority of already sanctioned assets currently listed under SEMA would not be covered by Bill S-217 because they belong to entities rather than individuals, and that Bill S-217 only allows for the repurposing of assets of individuals? In other words, Bill S-217 would not have an effect on the vast majority of currently sanctioned SEMA bodies?
Senator Omidvar: Thank you, senator, for that question. You are right in that Bill S-217 is focused on foreign nationals and not foreign entities.
At the same time, I should point out that, as the bill was conceived, it was always meant primarily to target individuals.
Senator Richards: Thank you to all the guests. This is a rather broad question, and it is for Mr. Axworthy, please.
How much influence does Canada have internationally with other countries to bolster substantial and sustained will? If it does not, would we be able to proceed unilaterally with regard to this bill?
Mr. Axworthy: I appreciate the question, senator. That is a very important question for the moment.
My view is that Canada has the traction and the history of being able to bring forward into the international arena good ideas that are practical and strategic. If I could, I will just list some that I was involved in such as the landmine treaty. It was something that was a product of Canadian diplomacy.
I think that if the Senate becomes the harbinger for this innovative way of accenting and bolstering the impact of a sanction, it would be something that would be adopted on a much broader scale. The fact that our Deputy Prime Minister is one of the key players in the new G7 task force on how to provide a further enhancement of the sanctioned regime is a very clear signal that they are looking for some leadership from Canada in this area.
The Senate is in a prime position to provide that kind of model that is available. You don’t have to go back to the drawing board. I think that the legislation by Senator Omidvar has already provided the kind of pointy end of the spear that will get international response, and I’m quite sure that you will see your handiwork result in fairly major international collaboration.
Senator Richards: Thank you, Mr. Axworthy.
Senator Oh: Thank you, witnesses, for being here.
My question is regarding the establishment of the registry that is proposed to be public, with the name of the person or entity with frozen assets and the value of the assets.
During his recent testimony, Mr. Lévêque said that Global Affairs Canada does not have access to detailed information on assets that have been effectively frozen under Canadian sanction legislation. How would you respond to the legal and resource challenges that GAC has identified with respect to creating a public registry?
My question is for anyone, please.
Mr. Rock: As I heard Mr. Lévêque, he was saying that Global Affairs Canada is not currently eligible to receive that information because it’s not included within the list of those who are to receive it by the governing statute. An amendment would be required to bring them into the circle.
My answer to your question, Senator Oh, is that if and when FARA is adopted, there will have to be a consequential amendment to that governing legislation to allow GAC to have access to the information required, which is required to create under the terms of this bill.
Senator Omidvar: Mr. Rock is completely right. I would only add that it is not completely necessary that the registry be held by GAC. It could be held by FINTRAC as well. There are options that the government can consider.
Senator Oh: Are our witnesses aware of whether other countries have registries accessible to the public as part of their sanction regimes? If yes, how do their registries work?
Mr. Rock: I’m not aware whether other countries have. It just seemed to us, as we thought through this proposal at the refugee council, that if the information about what’s frozen isn’t public, then there’s no awareness on the part of Canadians as to what is there to be seized and repurposed.
The idea is to have that information in the public domain, and have interested individuals and groups then invite the Attorney General to bring such an application, given the size of the asset on hand and the nature of the conduct by the person responsible. That is the idea.
Mr. Axworthy: Could I add one small addition?
There is a time-tested technique in diplomacy called “naming and shaming.” Having a registry in which people actually have transparent disclosure of where their investments are, in itself, becomes a tool of deterrence and a tool of action. Oftentimes, people are shocked to know exactly who is controlling certain resources and assets in their country. So I think there is that added impact of a transparency that would enhance the impact of the proposal for a registry.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: My question is for the sponsor of the bill, Senator Omidvar, but perhaps the Honourable Allan Rock can answer it as well.
At the last committee meeting, Deputy Minister Alexandre Lévesque explained that the constitutional division of legislative powers between the provinces and the federal government could be an issue with respect to Bill S-217.
Senator Boniface asked a good question about this issue at the last meeting. We received a written response a few days ago. I’ll let the senator speak if she wants to address this matter. Nevertheless, in general, it seems that the division of powers between the levels of government is a significant issue. The goals of the bill are commendable, because the bill seeks to repurpose frozen funds for the people. However, if the implementation of the legislation were to lead to complications between the federal government and the provinces, the goals for repurposing funds would likely be affected and the effectiveness of the legislation would undoubtedly be undermined.
Senator, what are your views on this issue? Do you think that the bill, as it stands, could lead to cooperation issues between the two levels of government? If so, do you have any suggestions?
[English]
Senator Omidvar: Thank you for that excellent and important question.
I am not a constitutional lawyer, so I will defer the question to Mr. Rock, who is. But let me assure you that there are precedents that we can cite to you, and there are opinions from other lawyers at the table.
I will let Mr. Rock answer that question in full.
[Translation]
Mr. Rock: I believe that the bill before you is constitutional. All governments in Canada, including the federal government and the provincial governments, must act within the scope of their constitutional powers.
In my view, this bill concerns Canada’s foreign relations, Canada’s relations with the world. It fully complies with the constitutional responsibilities and powers of the Government of Canada in that area.
[English]
I can provide another example of other legislation in which this kind of thing is provided for. Section 3(2) of the United Nations Act provides that:
Any property dealt with contrary to any order or regulation made under this Act may be seized and detained and is liable to forfeiture at the instance of the Minister of Justice . . . .
So it is already recognized in the legislation that when it comes to assets affected by sanctions, the Government of Canada can properly act to seize, detain and confiscate them.
Senator Boniface: Thank you very much to our witnesses, and particularly for the answer to the last question, because I raised this last time. Thank you for the clarity.
My question will be for Senator Omidvar. I want to give you an opportunity to finish your answer to Senator Woo’s question around foreign nationals versus the foreign entities piece. I think you were cut off, and there is great interest within the committee for clarity on that.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you, Senator Boniface, for giving me that opportunity. I was beginning to point out that the intent of this bill is to focus on corrupt foreign individuals. That is why we have used the term “foreign national.”
Within the sanctioned assets regime, there are any number of individuals, along with any number of foreign entities. Our bill is focused on individuals. At some point in the future, maybe it can go another way, but at this point we are focused on individuals as the primary focus of providing justice to victims from ill-gotten gains.
Mr. Rock: May I just add a word to that, chair? I do not want Senator Woo to be under any misapprehension. If there is a sanctioned individual and that individual, for example, owns shares in an entity, then the assets that are frozen — I mean, that individual is not allowed to deal with those shares if the order is made under SEMA.
What we’re proposing in FARA is that those shares would be seized, sold, the proceeds paid into court, and then repurposed as directed by the judge. The mere fact that the asset comes in the form of shares in an entity, or ownership of an entity, does not disqualify the asset for inclusion in FARA.
If individual X from Russia, for example, has been sanctioned, that person cannot deal with assets here in Canada. If those assets include shares in an entity, those shares can be ordered sold and paid into court for redistribution. I just wanted to make that clarifying point.
The Chair: Thank you. Did Mr. Axworthy want to make a comment as well? We have a minute or so.
Mr. Axworthy: I can make a short comment by way of comparison.
When we were drafting the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court, it was clear from all the evidence that it was much more important to put the onus on individuals. Too often people would hide behind an entity. They couldn’t be found. Once you begin to hold individuals accountable for their actions, then you actually have a point of direct accountability.
I think if you look to that precedent from the international criminal jurisdictions, you will see it would apply equally here.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Omidvar: If I may, I will take just a second to expand the conversation beyond Ukraine. I know we have been focused on Ukraine, for good reason. When this bill was put on the table two years ago, the invasion of Ukraine was in the future.
I want us to think about the situation in Myanmar. The names of the Tatmadaw generals are on the list. People in Bangladesh, the Rohingya refugees, a million of them, are living in complete squalor in Bangladesh. South Sudan has generated refugees to Uganda, and the names of the warlords are on the sanction list. Venezuela, which has generated millions of refugees into Colombia, the name of President Maduro is on the sanction list.
I want to leave you with the global significance of this bill as opposed to, of course, the focus today on Ukraine. That’s it.
The Chair: I would like to thank our witnesses for their testimony today. It was interesting, and we were honoured by your presence.
Colleagues, while we have a hard stop at 1:30, because we have a number of amendments that will possibly be moved today as we proceed through clause-by-clause consideration, I wish to provide all of you with a few reminders.
First, if at any point a senator is unclear as to where we are in the process, please ask for clarification so we are all literally on the same page. In terms of procedural mechanics, senators should know that when more than one amendment is to be proposed to be moved in a clause, amendments should be proposed in the order of the lines of that clause. Therefore, before we consider an amendment to a clause, I will verify whether any senators had intended to move an amendment earlier in that clause. If any senator did intend to move an earlier amendment, they will be given the opportunity do so.
If a senator is opposed to an entire clause, I remind you that in committee the proper process is not to move a motion to delete the entire clause but rather to vote against the clause as standing as part of the bill. I would also remind senators that some amendments that are moved may have consequential effects on other parts of the bill. To that end, it would be helpful to this process if a senator moving an amendment identified to the committee other clauses in this bill where their amendment could have an effect. This will help ensure members of the committee remain consistent in their decision making. Staff will endeavour to keep track of places where subsequent amendments need to be moved, and they will draw our attention to them.
As we proceed, if committee members have any questions or concerns about the process, they may raise a point of order. As chair, I will listen to arguments and render a ruling after sufficient discussion of the matter. Of course, any decision made by the chair can be appealed to the full committee by asking whether the ruling should be sustained.
As your chair, I will do my utmost to ensure that all senators wishing to speak can do so. I remind senators of our hard stop at 1:30, whether or not we have completed our business today, and ask all senators to please keep their remarks brief and to the point.
If there is ever any uncertainty as to the result of a voice vote or a show of hands, the most effective route is to request a roll call vote, which provides unambiguous results. In the event of a tie, as senators well know, the motion in question is defeated.
Senator Omidvar, the sponsor of the bill, has asked to remain for this portion of the discussion. I would ask if there are any objections to that? Agreed? Thank you very much.
Are there any other questions at this point? If not, we’ll move to clause-by-clause consideration.
Is it agreed, honourable senators, that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-217, An Act respecting the repurposing of certain seized, frozen or sequestrated assets?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the preamble stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 2 carry? I heard a “no”? Thank you.
Senator Woo would like to move an amendment. We will circulate and distribute the amendment right now.
Senator Woo: May I make my remarks, chair, in the interests of time, or shall we wait?
The Chair: Please read the amendment and make your argument, Senator Woo.
Senator Woo: The amendment is being circulated, and you can read it for yourself. If it is adopted, there will have to be a consequential amendment in clause 5 on page 3, for your information.
Allow me to provide for the record my reasoning for the amendment, which seeks to remove from the coverage of the bill two of the three sanctions acts, hence limiting its application to the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act only.
My reasoning is as follows: First, sanctions have multiple purposes, including domestic, political signalling, punishing bad acts and inducing a change in behaviour. Bill S-217 is consistent with the first two objectives but runs counter to the third. A sanction that is irreversible due to the repurposing of a foreign asset would lose any power to induce the bad actor to change.
Repurposing the asset does not add to any deterrent effect because the freezing of the asset is the principal deterrent rather than the act of repurposing.
Second, of the three sanctions acts that Bill S-217 will be applied to, the Freezing Assets of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, also known as FACFOA, is not actually part of the sanctions regime. It is, rather, a tool for mutual legal assistance between Canada and a requesting country to repatriate improperly obtained assets of the requesting country through negotiation. I believe it is inappropriate to impose a unilateral asset repurposing function on FACFOA, which should be about Canada working cooperatively with the affected country.
In situations where the affected country is run by a regime that Canada simply cannot work with, it is, in my opinion, preferable to sequester the assets until such time as an acceptable regime is returned to power than to repurpose the assets unilaterally.
Third, the other two acts covered under Bill S-217 are indeed part of Canada’s sanctions regime, but I believe an important distinction can be made between the Special Economic Measures Act, or SEMA, and the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, also known as Magnitsky.
Fourth, SEMA covers sanctions that Canada has chosen to impose on foreign states, persons or entities outside of a UN Security Council resolution. SEMA is very much a tool of Canadian foreign policy and is typically used in conjunction with diplomacy and other tools of statecraft. In this sense, a major goal of SEMA sanctions is to try to induce behaviour change, which is why it explicitly leaves open the possibility of reversing the sanction. For example, a SEMA sanction can be amended or revoked by a motion signed by at least 50 members of the House of Commons and at least 20 members of the Senate. A SEMA-sanctioned asset that is repurposed under Bill S-217 would render useless the behaviour change objective and, I believe, reduce the number of tools in our diplomatic tool kit.
Furthermore, Bill S-217 would not be applicable to a very large proportion of the assets currently frozen under SEMA because the proposed bill only allows for the repurposing of assets belonging to individuals.
Fifth, the Magnitsky Act, on the other hand, is very much about punishing bad actors — only individuals, I should note, not entities — which is consistent with Bill S-217. This act, as suggested in its formal title, seeks to restore “justice for victims of corrupt foreign officials.” Behaviour change does not appear to be a significant objective of Magnitsky except insofar as it has a deterrent effect on would-be violators looking to place assets in Canada.
A quick reading of the MP and senator speeches during the debate on Magnitsky would confirm that Parliament’s purpose was much more about justice and restitution than diplomacy.
Sixth, hence, I believe that while Bill S-217 is entirely appropriate for assets frozen under Magnitsky — indeed, I believe it is the logical extension of that bill — the fit is not so good for FACFOA or SEMA.
Finally, it could well be that we move, over time, in the direction of sanctions as the tool that is principally or entirely for the purpose of punishment, in which case we could, at a later date, add SEMA to the coverage of Bill S-217. I believe FACFOA would still be problematic. Thank you, chair, and thank you, colleagues.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Senator Woo.
Senator Harder: Thank you, Senator Woo, for raising this issue.
While I share some of the observations you make as concerns, I’m comforted by the fact that this is not directive but permissive. In other words, the Governor-in-Council can reflect on how, whether and if it’s appropriate to use the provisions of Bill S-217 under the circumstances that they find themselves in.
I’m quite comfortable with the broader definition that is in Bill S-217, given the fact that we are operating under the Royal Prerogative, which is an institution I feel is very important for us to protect. It’s not counter to the Royal Prerogative. It’s simply providing a tool kit in the tool box of diplomacy that otherwise isn’t there, so I would oppose your amendments.
Senator Woo: Thank you, Senator Harder. You’re quite right that this is an option that’s left for the Governor-in-Council, and to that extent perhaps it will never be used in an unacceptable or irresponsible way.
But I’m seeking coherence. I’m seeking coherence in Bill S-217. I believe the best coherence for a bill that seeks to freeze, seize and repurpose assets is, in fact, the Magnitsky bill, which is explicitly about punishment and justice for victims as opposed to SEMA and FACFOA, which have, in the case of SEMA, a very large element of behaviour change and, in the case of FACFOA, very much a focus on mutual legal assistance.
I would much prefer to not give a tool to the government that does not fit the legislation for which that tool is positioned. For that reason, I would propose excising SEMA and FACFOA from Bill S-217. But I thank Senator Harder for his clarification.
Senator Omidvar: I will simply repeat what I said earlier. I believe this amendment would cut this bill off at its knees because it would remove the bill from having an impact on the global sanction regimes — the three that we know.
I will also stress again that when SEMA was called into law, it was made clear during witness testimony that one of the objectives was not just behavioural change but to bring home to another government the real cost of unacceptable behaviour.
I will also submit to you that there are many individuals and entities on those lists that have not changed their behaviour, and I believe there are some individuals — let’s talk about individuals only — who will never change their behaviour. So waiting forever whilst people suffer and live through the kind of indignity that we know of is not supportable to me, and that is what this bill suggests to do.
Senator MacDonald: I read over Senator Woo’s rationale for his amendments of Bill S-217. He essentially wants to weaken the bill in order to allow for more flexibility, in his words, “because Bill S-217 runs counter to changing bad behaviour.”
He says that a major goal of SEMA, for example, is to induce behavioural change. One cannot do that if the assets are repurposed by a court. He argues that this would eliminate the incentive to change behaviour, so he proposes to limit the application to the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, which we know as the Sergei Magnitsky Law.
Senator Woo’s first point is that if Canada was to seize an asset from someone under sanctions, the seizure of that asset means that there can be no promise of the return of the seized asset to induce better behaviour. That might be so if the only purpose of the asset seizure is to change behaviour after the illegal acts have been committed.
But today, seizing an asset is meant to show an individual — for example, one tied to the Putin regime — that Canada intends to penalize them and take the fruits of their ill-gotten gains from them. It is meant to dissuade them from behaving improperly from beginning, not just after they’ve been caught.
So Senator Woo’s amendment, in my eyes, will undermine the intent of the bill and weaken it, so I cannot support the amendment, and I encourage colleagues to defeat this amendment. Thank you.
The Chair: Senator Coyle, I saw you had your hand up, but then it went down. I just want to make sure that we’re not making a mistake here; there was a technical glitch. Senator Coyle, did you have a comment?
Senator Coyle: It was covered by Senator Omidvar.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Are we ready for the question?
It is moved by the Honourable Senator Woo:
That Bill S-217 be amended in clause 2, on page 2, by replacing lines 13 to 18 with the following:
“order under paragraph 4(1)(b) of the Justice for Victims of”.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment? I heard a yes and a no. I think the “nays” have it.
The motion is defeated.
Are there any other amendments to clause 2?
Senator Coyle: Yes, I have another amendment to clause 2, and I will give you the rationale before I give you the amendment, and you’ve already heard Senator Omidvar speak to this amendment.
This one and another one which I will bring forward are responses to the testimony we heard at the last Foreign Affairs Committee. The rationale for this amendment is that FARA defines frozen assets as property that the Governor-in-Council caused to be seized, frozen or sequestered by order under paragraph 4(1)(b) of SEMA.
Mr. Lévêque told our committee last week that the Governor-in-Council does not often use paragraph 4(1)(b) of SEMA but rather makes most orders under paragraph 4(1)(a). Therefore, FARA is limited in its application to a category of assets frozen by the GIC under paragraph 4(1)(b) of SEMA.
So the remedy, as was suggested, is to amend the definition of “frozen assets” to include assets in respect of which the GIC has made an order under either paragraph 4(1)(a) or (b) of SEMA.
I move:
That Bill S-217 be amended in clause 2, on page 2, by replacing line 14 with the following:
“(a) section 4 of the Special Economic Mea-”.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Coyle. Would anyone like to engage on debate on this amendment?
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment? Agreed.
Shall clause 2, as amended, carry? It is agreed?
[Translation]
Shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall clause 4 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall clause 5 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall clause 6 carry? Senator Coyle? Quickly, please.
[English]
Senator Coyle: It’s a little awkward online doing the clause-by-clause consideration. Could we go back to clause 6?
The Chair: Please do, Senator Coyle.
Senator Coyle: Again, as I mentioned earlier, this is an amendment made as a response to testimony we heard last week. Witness Meredith Lilly said that the:
. . . proposed FARA legislation, is narrower in the list of conditions for repurposing than the enabling legislation in SEMA. By far the most common legal rationale for imposing Canadian sanctions is for the condition of:
. . . a grave breach of international peace and security that has resulted or is likely to result in a serious international crisis . . . .
— as defined in SEMA.
This is the legal rationale listed for the more than 800 individuals sanctioned to date over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. However, the SEMA condition of a “grave breach of international peace and security” is not listed under FARA for repurposing assets. Instead, FARA casts a narrower set of conditions that requires evidence that sanctioned individuals have been responsible for or complicit in human rights violations, forced displacement or significant acts of corruption.
This matters because this inconsistency of language may potentially impact the court’s ability to fully repurpose assets that have been frozen in Canada, particularly with respect to the current crisis in Ukraine —
— and we’ve been talking about that.
. . . Therefore, I want to ensure the list of conditions reflected in FARA reflects the intentions of senators for its potential use should the bill pass.
Therefore, to ensure that FARA aligns with SEMA — so we’re at clause 6, page 3 — and I move now:
That Bill S-217 be amended in clause 6, on page 3, by adding the following after line 25:
“(a.1) a grave breach of international peace and security that resulted in or is likely to result in a serious international crisis;”.
Senator MacDonald: In regard to this amendment, Senator Coyle’s amendment would add a new subclause expanding the reasons that an asset may be seized to include:
(a.1) a grave breach of international peace and security that resulted in or is likely to result in a serious international crisis . . .
I think this provision is a little bit broad. How would a grave breach of international peace and security likely to result in a serious international crisis be defined? It could be defined as almost anything. For example, could it include NATO’s intervention in Afghanistan or NATO’s intervention in Kosovo in 1999? Some might argue that a grave breach of international peace resulting in a crisis could be so defined.
My view is that this amendment is too broad. I understand the intent is to try to apply to Ukraine, but I think better alternative wording might then say, “a foreign national responsible for or complicit in.” New (a.1): An invasion by one member of the United Nations of a territory of another member of the United Nations where that action is condemned either by the Security Council of the United Nations or through a majority vote of the General Assembly of the United Nations where Canada also votes in favour? I think we could look at that.
When I was 12 years old, Israel pre-emptively initiated a defensive attack on states that were amassing forces against her in 1967. Under Senator Coyle’s amendment, this could be characterized as a grave breach of international peace and security leading to a crisis. The majority of states in the UN General Assembly probably would have described it as such, but I don’t think Canada would have seen it as such.
I think this is another example of why this proposed amendment is potentially too broad and why it needs to be rejected or replaced with a provision that’s focused directly on invasions and Canada clearly condemning the specific action in question. When you broaden the application of Bill S-217 in this manner, I think you can trigger unintended consequences. I think it’s too broad and it should be rejected in its present form.
Senator Richards: I agree with Senator MacDonald. I think it’s broad. Worse, I think it’s almost wholly subjective, and I don’t think we need it in this bill. That’s my position on it.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you for your comments, Senator MacDonald and Senator Richards. I just want to remind everyone that it is the Attorney General of Canada who would make the application for confiscation and repurposing based on the consent of the government. It would be at their discretion. I believe inserting this language into the bill gives the Attorney General the capacity to go further, but it is based on discretion and foreign policy objectives. It’s not every international crisis and every breach of international security.
Senator Coyle: I’d like to thank my colleague. I was going to say something similar. Of course, we’re also trying to bring it in alignment with the language in SEMA. For that reason and the point being, this will be used very carefully. The whole thing will be used carefully with discretion, and I don’t believe it goes too far given that consideration.
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Some Hon. Senators: No.
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: I think the “yeas” have it.
Senator MacDonald, would you be satisfied with “on division” on this?
Senator MacDonald: I would like to have a vote on this, if we could.
The Chair: Thank you.
Gaëtane Lemay, Clerk of the Committee: This is a vote on the amendment by Senator Coyle to clause 6, page 3, line 25. She has already read her amendment, so I’m calling the vote. Honourable senators, how do you vote? Yes, no, or abstain.
The Honourable Senator Boehm?
Senator Boehm: Yes.
Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Boniface?
Senator Boniface: Yes.
Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Coyle?
Senator Coyle: Yes.
Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Deacon?
Senator M. Deacon: Yes.
Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Gerba?
Senator Gerba: Yes.
Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Greene?
Senator Greene: Yes.
Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Harder?
Senator Harder: Yes.
Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Housakos?
Senator Housakos: No.
Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator MacDonald?
Senator MacDonald: No.
Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Oh?
Senator Oh: No.
Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Ravalia?
Senator Ravalia: Yes.
Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Richards?
Senator Richards: No.
Ms. Lemay: The Honourable Senator Woo?
Senator Woo: Yes.
Ms. Lemay: The results: Yes, nine; no, four; abstentions, zero.
The Chair: Motion carried. We will go back to clause 7. Shall clause 7 carry? Shall clause 8 carry? Shall clause 9 carry? I’m sorry, we’ll have to go back to — is it clause 8?
Ms. Lemay: Yes, clause 8, but before that, clause 6 as amended.
The Chair: We also didn’t carry clause 6 as amended. Clause 6, as amended? Agreed. Okay.
We have a bit of a technical delay. Part of it is that my sign plates do not allow me to look over at the monitor, so I didn’t quite see Senator Gerba who wanted to speak, I believe, on clause 8, on a proposed amendment.
[Translation]
Senator, you have the floor.
Senator Gerba: Thank you, Mr. Chair. My proposed amendment is inspired by the Foreign Illicit Assets Act, which Switzerland passed in 2016. It’s currently being used as a reference in this area. The legislation contains a provision authorizing the equivalent levy of up to 2.5% of the total value of the seized assets. The goal is to cover the costs of the proceedings and confiscation.
As you know, Mr. Chair and fellow colleagues, I come from a business background, where operational and management costs are extremely significant. These costs can’t be overlooked. Someone must pay for the operations. The legislation covers everything except who will pay for the management of anything confiscated and the repurposing process. Someone must pay for this. That’s the reason for my proposed amendment.
When asked last week about the possibility of including a similar provision in Bill S-217, some speakers at the meeting welcomed the proposal. I’ll quote Assistant Deputy Minister Alexandre Lévêque, who said as follows:
I think what you are referring to is entirely appropriate and sensible. Indeed, if this bill comes into being, we would like to see the administrative considerations of the costs of administration to support the operations taken into account. It would be a bit premature to give you an exact percentage, but you are right that these kinds of costs should be considered in order to align resources with objectives.
Ms. Côté-Freeman also readily stated as follows:
As you have clearly understood from my remarks, we support the bill and certainly its spirit. The problem in Canada is that we have very few anti-corruption laws that are implemented. We have very limited resources for that.
Funding for the goals of this bill provides an additional guarantee that they’ll be implemented. Since no funding mechanism is provided, the legislation won’t be implemented, because the money must be found somewhere.
Moreover, the confiscation and restitution processes are undoubtedly complex and very costly. That’s why I’m moving the following amendment:
That Bill S-217 be amended in clause 8, on page 4, by adding the following after line 33:
(1.1) Before making an order under subsection (1), the court may order, on such terms and conditions that it considers appropriate, that an amount not to exceed 2.5% of the value a frozen asset to which the moneys paid into court relate be provided to Her Majesty in Right of Canada or a province to reimburse costs incurred to administer this Act and any activities associated with the frozen asset under
(a) the Special Economic Measures Act;
(b) the Freezing Assets of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act; or;
(c) the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law).
That’s my proposal. I’ll let you debate it.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Gerba. Is there any debate?
[English]
Senator Harder: Thanks very much, colleagues.
I have two concerns with this. I appreciate that it’s permissive so it does not require this, but one concern would be that I would not want any skeptic to accuse the Government of Canada for going after an asset for repurposing to get 2.5%. The other concern is the one that Senator Omidvar raised earlier, which is that, at the end of the day, that would be 2.5% or lower, depending upon the exercise of discretion, fewer funds available for repurposing and, therefore, we would, in a sense, be denying the full benefit and effect of the repurposing.
I appreciate what the senator is seeking to do here, but I am concerned on those bases.
Senator Woo: I want to associate myself with Senator Harder’s comments and follow the principle that we discussed earlier on my own amendment, which is that we should not put into a bill an act that we don’t want the government to have access to, even if it is permissive in intent.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Anyone else on debate?
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: I understand the concern that the federal government won’t reduce the amounts. I’m concerned about who will cover these costs. The 2.5% is a maximum amount. However, regardless of the amount in question, there will need to be a mechanism for managing the money or assets and the Canadian taxpayers will have to cover the costs.
Is it a given that the taxpayers will bear the cost of managing these funds and compensating the victims? That’s what I wanted to say.
The Chair: Thank you for your explanation, Senator Gerba. Are there any other comments?
[English]
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment? I have one “yes.” In my opinion, the “nays” have it. We can defeat it, on division, if that is acceptable. Defeated, on division.
Shall clause 9 carry? Carried.
Shall the preamble carry? Carried.
Shall the title carry? Carried.
Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry? Carried.
Shall the bill, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Is it agreed, honourable senators, that I report this bill, as amended, to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Ms. Lemay: We have to go back to clause 8, because we defeated the amendment but did not adopt clause 8.
The Chair: Okay. The clerk is telling me that we did not formally adopt clause 8. My error. I thought that we had.
Shall clause 8 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
Is it agreed, honourable senators:
That the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make necessary technical, grammatical or other required non-substantive changes as a result of the amendments adopted by the committee, including updating cross-references and renumbering of provisions?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
If there are no other items, colleagues, we will adjourn the meeting. Our next meeting will take place next Thursday, April 7. That is when we will begin our study on the Canadian foreign service and elements of the foreign policy machinery within Global Affairs Canada.
Senator M. Deacon: I wanted to make sure we finished the amendments before I made a formal comment. May I do so?
The Chair: Proceed.
Senator M. Deacon: I indicated to my colleagues that I planned on putting an amendment forward and did not do so. However, for the record, I would like to share this with you.
Feedback last week and some suggestions from our witnesses drove me to take a closer look at the term “foreign national” versus a “foreign citizen” or “foreign person.” I did that in consultation with others around the table to make the decision to review this bill in whole. I made the decision that bringing that as an amendment actually created some other situations and challenges.
So I declined to amendment it, but I wanted to indicate that it was on the radar, certainly with respect to feedback from our witnesses last week.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Senator Deacon. I apologize for not having seen you earlier. Thank you for your comment, which we will, of course, add to the record.
(The committee adjourned.)