C-219 proposes the International Anti-Corruption and Human Rights Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law No. 3). It would amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law) and the Special Economic Measures Act. Its stated goal is to strengthen Canada’s sanctions response to human rights violations, corruption and threats to international peace and security; that goal is not a guaranteed result.
The supplied material does not say whether the bill has passed or is in force. The changes below are proposed, not established as current law.
The Foreign Affairs Minister would have to publish an annual report on Canada’s efforts to advance human rights and support prisoners of conscience and human rights defenders internationally. The bill defines “prisoner of conscience.”
The bill would add transnational repression and activities that undermine, or are likely to undermine, international peace, security or stability as grounds for sanctions under the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act. Transnational repression is defined to include specified tactics by a foreign state to silence dissent or activism outside its borders.
Amendments to the Special Economic Measures Act would add grounds related to threats to international peace, security or stability and to transnational repression or gross and systematic human rights violations in a foreign state. These grounds would allow sanctions to be imposed; the text does not require sanctions in every case.
Under both sanctions Acts, the responsible Minister would have to apply to forfeit private property seized or restrained under an order within 24 months, and dispose of property that is forfeited within 30 days. These deadlines would not apply while legal proceedings are ongoing.
Orders and regulations under the two Acts would have to be tabled in Parliament: within 15 days after they are made under the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, and within five sitting days of each House under the Special Economic Measures Act.
The bill would set a maximum fine of $100,000 and a maximum prison term of three years, or both, for the offences covered by the penalty provisions it amends. It would also rename the Special Economic Measures Act and update references to it in other laws and regulations.
People, businesses and organizations in Canada: The bill would not itself name or sanction anyone. If the government made sanctions orders under the expanded grounds, those orders could affect people or organizations dealing with persons or property covered by them. The bill does not set out a new process for deciding individual cases.
People affected by transnational repression: The new definition names groups including political dissidents, human rights defenders, exiled journalists, diaspora communities, civil society activists and refugees. Their inclusion does not itself create a right to services, protection or compensation.
Foreign Affairs Minister: The Minister would have to publish the annual report. The first report would be due within 12 months after that requirement comes into force.
People or businesses subject to the amended offence provisions: The proposed maximum penalty would be a $100,000 fine, up to three years in prison, or both. The parent Acts were not supplied, so the existing penalty cannot be verified here.
Taxpayers and the general public: The bill would add reporting and parliamentary tabling requirements, but does not itself create a new agency or front-line service.
The bill would require annual reporting and new deadlines for handling certain seized or restrained property, but gives no estimate of staffing, administration or enforcement costs.
It does not set a fee, tax or appropriation, or say what happens to proceeds from disposed property.
The supplied material does not establish the bill’s status, when it would come into force, or whether any parts would start at different times.
The parent Acts were not supplied, so the existing sanctions processes, property-forfeiture rules, offence provisions and penalties could not be checked against current law.
The bill does not say how decisions to impose sanctions would be made, what evidence would be required, or what review or appeal process would apply. It also does not say how its new grounds would interact with existing sanctions programs.
“Likely to undermine” international peace, security or stability is not defined in the supplied text. The new definition of transnational repression does not specify how officials would decide whether the stated purpose of silencing dissent or stifling activism is present.
The bill sets deadlines for applying to forfeit and disposing of property, but the supplied text does not explain how disposal would work or where proceeds would go.
The bill appears intended to give Canada more grounds to impose sanctions where foreign nationals engage in transnational repression or threaten international peace, security or stability.
Adding these grounds could let the government respond to conduct directed at people outside a foreign state’s borders, not only conduct within that state.
Annual reporting could make the government describe its human rights efforts publicly, while tabling rules could make sanctions orders and regulations more visible to Parliament.
Deadlines for forfeiture applications and disposal could reduce how long certain seized or restrained property remains unresolved, while preserving an exception for ongoing legal proceedings.
The new grounds include conduct “likely” to undermine international peace, security or stability, but the bill does not define that phrase or set out decision rules in the supplied text. This could leave significant judgment to the government.
The bill adds grounds for sanctions but does not explain how affected people or organizations could challenge a decision or how the new grounds would fit with existing sanctions programs.
The annual report must outline measures taken, but the bill does not require it to assess whether those measures worked.
The forfeiture deadlines could make timely decisions important, but the bill does not explain the disposal process or how property would be handled in practice.