Seizing Putin’s $billions: Canada’s plan to fund Ukraine’s recovery | Experts weigh the risks

Added: 2026-05-11

[00:00:00]Uh colleagues, we are meeting today to continue our examination of bill S214, an act to amend the special economic measures act uh disposal of foreign state assets. And today we have the pleasure of welcoming to the committee as an individual uh Fen Hamson who is the chancellor's professor at Carlton University and president of the World Refugee Council and from the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, Danilo Corbach and Ores Zaki Dalsski the senior policy adviser. Uh Danilo Corvovich is the chief executive officer and executive director. Welcome to all of you and thank you for taking the time to be with us today. Before we hear your opening statements and proceed to questions and answers, I would ask everyone present to please mute uh notifications on your devices and also kindly observe the instructions that are on the card in front of you regarding use of the microphone and the earpiece so we can protect our technical and staff and our interpreters.

[00:01:11]Uh we are now ready to hear your opening remarks and as per usual they will be followed by questions from senators and your answers. Uh professor Hamson you have the floor uh to be followed by Mr. Corbich.

[00:01:28]>> Thank you uh Mr. Chair. Uh, Bill C214 uh, closes a serious gap in Canada's sanctions regime, enabling the lawful forfeite uh, or direct exercise of custodial control uh, by the government of Canada of another state's assets under exceptional circumstances as laid out in the Strategic Economic Measures Act. The bill does not undermine state sovereignty. It reflects the modern understanding that sovereignty entails enforcable obligations and cannot shield against grave breaches of international law.

[00:02:10]If you go back to the piece of West Failia, conventionally regarded as the origin of modern non-inferencebased sovereignty, uh European princes in the Holy Roman Empire were nonetheless bound by limited obligations to respect the rights of religious minorities. Territorial authority was never entirely unconstrained. In the centuries that followed, understandings of sovereignty shifted from a predominantly non-inference norm to a conception today that links sovereign authority to responsibilities towards populations under a state's jurisdiction.

[00:02:51]That is reflected in the prohibitions against the U. use of force in the UN charter, the responsibility to protect principle which was endorsed unanimously by the UN General Assembly in 2005.

[00:03:06]Contemporary law of state responsibility together with the post-war human rights regime. And finally, I would draw your attention to the law of state immunity itself. Historically, foreign states enjoyed absolute immunity from legal action in other count's courts with no exception. Over the 20th century, as states have become active commercial players, the law has shifted to a more restrictive approach. Uh, states retain immunity for sovereign acts but lose it for commercial or private law conduct.

[00:03:42]Bill uh S214 operationalizes the international law doctrine of counter measures in response uh in this case uh that we may talk about Russia's aggression uh against Ukraine. uh I won't dwell on that as other committee me uh uh members who've uh uh individuals who've appeared before uh this uh committee uh have uh uh have already discussed.

[00:04:10]Beyond the legal argument, however, lies a compelling public interest argument.

[00:04:17]The issue is whether Canadian taxpayers should continue to the bear the costs of Russia's war or whether Russia's own assets should fund Ukraine's efforts and recovery. As you all know, Canada has already committed billions in loans, grants, and military assistance to Ukraine. Meanwhile, hundreds of billions in Russian sovereign assets remain frozen in various G7 jurisdictions.

[00:04:49]Canadian allies are moving ahead on controlling and repurposing Russian state assets. And Canada, I would argue, risks becoming an outlier if it fails to modernize its own legislative toolkit.

[00:05:06]The United States, as you may know, passed dedicated legislation, the Repo Act, that allows Russian state assets held under US jurisdiction to be seized and redirected to a Ukraine support fund. And US lawmakers have gone further by proposing follow-up measures that would provide for regular transfer of those resources to Ukraine. The European Union and key European states are progressively hardening their own approach from temporary freezes to indefinite immobilization and the use of interest revenues to explicit legal preparations to draw on frozen principle to cover reparations if Russia does not pay. An international compensation fund for Ukraine is being developed under the opaces of the Council of Europe with the register of damage already operational and a new international claims commission and compensation fund is in the process of being established. As this architecture is completed, there will be scope for Canada to channel forfeited or controlled Russian assets into that mechanism subject to the final design of the fund and Canada's own international commitments by providing cabinet with a clear clear executive pathway to forfeit certain Russian state-owned assets. Bill S214 would allow Canada to act under its own laws rather than relying solely on what might be protracted litigation.

[00:06:51]It is important to reduce the risk that those assets become tied up in legal proceedings and leave Canadian taxpayers to shoulder an increasingly large burden of the costs that uh uh you ourselves but also the people of Ukraine are experiencing. Thank you.

[00:07:12]>> Thank you uh Professor Hamson. I'd like to acknowledge that Senator Marty Deacon of Ontario has joined the meeting and uh and now we will go to Mr. Corvich.

[00:07:25]Distinguished chair, members of the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, thank you for the invitation to appear before you today.

[00:07:33]The Ukrainian Canadian Congress is the voice of Canada's Ukrainian community.

[00:07:37]Together with its member organization, the UCCC has been leading, coordinating, and representing the interests of the 1.4 4 million strong Ukrainian community in Canada since 1940 and has been instrumental in shaping Canada's social, economic, and political landscape. We are here to discuss bill S214, an act to amend the Special Economic Measures Act, disposable foreign state assets. We are deeply grateful to Senator John and Dasco for introducing this important legislation and to this body for their thoughtful and important debate on it.

[00:08:06]The UCCC stresses that the adoption of this bill, which would vest within the government the power to seize assets of state, states that perpetrate breaches of international peace and violate human rights, is an important and indeed in essential step in holding those states to account for their heinous crimes. The example of the Russian Federation is instructive. For 1532 days, Russia has tried to annihilate the Ukrainian state and destroy the Ukrainian people, their identity, their language, their culture.

[00:08:35]Both the House of Commons and the Senate have recognized that Russia is committing genocide against Ukraine.

[00:08:40]Hours ago, Russia bombed a kindergarten in Sume. Overnight, Russia murdered 26 civilians and injured over 100 more, bombing residential areas of Ukrainian cities. Senators, this horror is an everyday reality for every Ukrainian.

[00:08:55]Russia has abducted thousands of Ukrainian children. Russia has destroyed hundreds of Ukrainian cities and towns.

[00:09:01]Russia is committing systemic rape, torture, and murder. These are not random crimes. They are deliberate and systemic. They are Russian policy. These crimes are the means by which Russia seeks to destroy the Ukrainian people.

[00:09:14]This cruelty is not incidental. The cruelty is in fact the point. We have seen the indictment of Putin by the International Criminal Court for the abduction of Ukraine's children.

[00:09:24]Ukrainian investigators have identified over 230,000 war crimes committed by the Russian Federation since February 2000 February 2022.

[00:09:33]Putin and the cabal of war criminals who run Russia remain at large. But what we can do right now is take their money because they keep a lot of it in Western financial institutions. It is estimated that approximately 300 billion in Russian assets, much of which are Russian state assets, are currently frozen. The vast majority of these assets are held in jurisdictions other than Canada. The RCMP has reported just under 200 million in Russian assets immobilized in Canada. There are likely to be more assets that need identifying.

[00:10:04]Why then do we believe that the powers that would be granted to the government by S214 are so important? Because Canada can set a precedent. Canada can lead the way and show other like-minded allies the path forward. The European Union recently agreed to provide Ukraine with a 90 billion euro loan backed by frozen assets that will be critical for Ukraine's war effort and to allow the Ukrainian government to ensure the functioning of the state itself.

[00:10:29]The provision of this loan was held hostage for four four months for months by former Hungarian uh prime minister Orban and released only upon his defeat in a general election. The assistant to UK the assistance to Ukraine's war effort provided by Western countries ought not to be subject to the v vagaries of day-to-day politics. The fight is too important and not only for Ukraine. The recent budget imple implementation act has a provision that allows the governor and council to require financial institutions to report to the minister of finance any holdings owned by a sanctioned individual, entity, foreign state and on any profits realized from that holding. Profits which can be seized by the minister. We ask the minister of finance to do so.

[00:11:12]This provision will greatly assist in identifying Russian assets held in Canada. When coupled with S214, this creates a significant opportunity for the government to provide Canadian leadership on a global stage on this critical issue. In so doing, the government would have the strong support of Canadian of the Canadian people.

[00:11:30]Recent polling from Abacus data shows that 70% of Canadians support season frozen Russian assets in Canada and using them to fund Ukraine's defense and reconstruction. The UCCC calls on this committee to do so as well. Thank you very much.

[00:11:45]>> Thank you, Mr. Corbovich for your commentary. Um, >> dear colleagues, I'd like to remember you that you have three minutes maximum each for the first round, including the questions and answers. So, I would like to ask the senators and the witnesses to be concise. We can always have a second round if time allows it. I have a list here.

[00:12:13]Senator McDonald.

[00:12:15]>> Thank you, Chair, and thank you to our witnesses. My question is for Professor Hansen. Um, the academic and former diplomat Edward Fishman has written a rather interesting book called Chokepoints where he reviews what he calls economic warfare conducted by the West principally and led by the United States with respect to Russia, China, and Iran.

[00:12:37]uh and while he was intimately involved and certainly supports uh these measures uh he raised the prospect of how the economic warfare has had unintended consequences in terms of strengthening the capacity of the belligerent that he's that we're targeting to get around the uh the sanctions with very creative um uh responses of their own including with banking and other other economic forces. Um could you comment a bit on the unintended consequences that we are working and living through and how this bill and to what extent this bill will either accelerate or blunt some of those.

[00:13:23]There are a whole range of potential unintended consequences.

[00:13:29]One of which is that uh authoritarian regimes that are concerned about uh shall we say the u health of their assets in foreign jurisdictions uh will probably and in fact have moved their assets to more friendly jurisdictions.

[00:13:52]So that is uh unquestionably a consequence of even the existing sanctions regime and freezing of assets.

[00:14:03]But secondly, I think we have to be aware that there may well be retaliation against Canadian investments in uh in Russia.

[00:14:16]We may also uh come under pressure from other jurisdictions which are holding Canadian bonds which uh might well um uh themselves as has already been the case for some European countries.

[00:14:38]uh they've come under pressure from uh foreign bond holders uh with the threat that they will dump those bonds. Um and that uh will obviously have uh monetary uh policy consequences.

[00:14:54]Um uh a third uh potential consequence is what might be called an investment chill effect that if you pass such legislation um particularly uh holders of uh uh or shall we say foreign uh sovereign investment funds that want to invest in Canada uh might say well this this isn't a particularly friendly jurisdiction.

[00:15:24]Um those are risks but I think they're manageable risks uh under uh the current legislation.

[00:15:33]Uh the current legislation does not give a uh and I'm talking about SEMA here, not the amendments, but SEMA does not give an unrestricted hunting license to the executive authority. There are uh many guard rails in that legislation.

[00:15:51]Um, this is a hammer that will not be going looking for nails.

[00:15:56]>> Thank Thank you very much. I'm sorry we're over time on that uh segment. Uh, Senator McDonald to be followed by Senator Woo.

[00:16:04]>> Thank you, Chair. We've heard a lot about Russian assets, but I wonder if you could define them a little better for me. Um, it's a very broad term. Uh, how would Russian assets be defined around the world and what form would they come in?

[00:16:22]Who is the question for?

[00:16:24]>> Whoever can answer it.

[00:16:29]>> Happy to.

[00:16:31]>> Uh I mean there are several definitions of the assets, right? One one is state assets, others are frozen assets of of individuals and entities that are abroad.

[00:16:43]um the state the when we talk about state assets they're usually uh either uh bonds or money held by the Russian central bank that are in uh other jurisdictions.

[00:16:58]Uh, private assets would be property owned by, you know, Russian oligarchs, Russian state officials, uh, or, you know, things like yachts, uh, land property and money accounts, planes, uh, mansions, etc. Um, and I know, Professor Ay, if you have any.

[00:17:24]Well, they're um assets that uh are held by the uh the Bank of Russia. Um but they're also uh various uh state-owned uh companies which uh to all intents and purposes are are uh organs of the Russian state. So that uh also falls under that umbrella. uh in in the case of Canada uh the big money is uh 22 billion roughly which is about 11% of uh uh the Russian holdings with Eurocar that are in uh cash deposits um bonds uh with um uh Canadian financial institutions um which could be our chartered banks.

[00:18:11]It could also be the Bank of Canada. Um, now they're on deposit, uh, which is to say, um, you know, the the title is with, uh, uh, Euroclear and its depositors, but, um, uh, that's a fairly substantial sum of money that, uh, uh, I believe is still, if you look at Euro Clearar's um, public uh, accounts uh, that are available online, uh, they're pretty substantial Canadian holdings there.

[00:18:44]want time for real quick back. Uh >> I'm afraid there isn't Senator, but we'll >> uh I I try my best. Uh so we'll we'll put you on for the second round if that's all right. Um Senator Woo to be followed by Senator El Zbeck.

[00:18:59]>> Yes. Russia's uh illegal aggression against Ukraine is egregious and indefensible and the application of this law to Russia as the first test case if you will is uh is powerful from a legal moral public interest perspective. Uh but this is not the only gross violation of international law that's taking place in the world right now. Do you have any confidence that this law can and will be applied to other examples of gross violations of international law that are taking place right now?

[00:19:30]>> Uh maybe Dr. Hamson followed by our Ukrainian colleagues >> that depends on the government in power >> and apply the same standard to blatant violations of international law that are taking place right now. What does that do for our credibility?

[00:19:52]Well, that is a policy issue.

[00:19:56]The uh issue as I understand it uh when it comes to this bill is to give the government tools and I agree with you Senator that there are other egregious cases and there's some in fact when the World Refugee Council proposed this idea uh to uh go after uh foreign assets uh uh we weren't looking at Russia uh we were looking at uh Colombia uh uh sorry, Venezuela uh and uh Maduro holdings of real estate uh uh and and government holdings in in Canada and to repurpose those assets to help uh uh forcibly displaced persons in Colombia. So, you know, that's that's another uh example uh potentially. But as I said earlier in my remarks, um yes, you need the hammer, but the nails that you look for is a policy question and ultimately uh one for the government of Canada and the policy makers and advocates who believe that action should be taken in those cases.

[00:21:13]Will our Ukrainian colleagues um support say Palestinians and others who would advocate for the same to be applied to Israel in solidarity with another group that's being severely oppressed currently?

[00:21:30]>> Um I would echo the professor's point and I would only say that uh our desire is that these tools be used judiciously. Um I would also say um to previous senator's question that I wouldn't be so convinced that in terms of unintended consequences that the alternatives to investment in western states are particularly attractive. Um um I suspect they might face uh bigger challenges than in in western institutions.

[00:22:05]>> Senator Alzak to be followed by Senator Roalia.

[00:22:08]Thank you Mr. Chair and thank you uh to our witnesses for being here uh today.

[00:22:14]Uh Professor Hamson uh you have uh indicated in your uh you have provided very compelling uh opening statements.

[00:22:24]Thank you so much for that. But are you aware of other countries? You referred to some other countries moving forward with applying uh the same kind of mechanism. Uh are you aware of other countries specifically who have adopted the kinds of measures being proposed in bill S 214?

[00:22:44]And uh if I uh may if there are if you have any other uh examples from other juris jurisdictions where court have successfully authorized the seizure and repurposing of foreign state assets despite claims of sovereign immunity.

[00:23:07]So I would make uh two comments and I'll try to be brief. Um the first is that um the uh the repo act of uh the United States um which uh has a fancy name that I can never remember. Uh the rebuilding economic prosperity and opportunity for Ukraine's act uh is uh is pretty similar. Um it um uh it has not been used as yet. Uh there is legislation uh that um members of Congress have brought forward. Uh but um that ultimately is a decision of the executive.

[00:23:50]Um I would say that um uh Iraq uh provides a powerful precedent for using uh frozen or controlled state assets to compensate victims of aggression. Uh after the 1990 invasion of Kuwait, the Security Council created a compensation commission that was financed by a percentage of Iraq's oil uh revenues, which ultimately paid out about 52.4 billion in reparations uh uh to the victims over three decades. After the 2003 invasion, the United States vested uh 1.7 billion in frozen Iraqi uh government assets and together with other coalition members, channeled Iraqi oil revenues uh into a development fund uh to finance Iraq's budget and reconstruction uh efforts. Um what's interesting there is that even after formal sovereignty was restored to Iraq as some of you may know uh Iraqi oil revenues remain deposited and continue to remain deposited to this day with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. every dollar earned from oil that passes uh uh out of uh Iraq uh that's produced there uh passes through American hands uh before it goes back to Baghdad. There's been uh no formal seizure, but I would uh argue custodial control is being exercised by the United States over uh Iraq's uh oil revenues.

[00:25:32]>> Thank you. Thank you very much, uh, Senator Ravalia, followed by Senator Coyle, please.

[00:25:38]>> Thank you, Chair, and thank you very much to our witnesses. Uh, Professor Hamson, are you concerned that this bill affords executive overreach, due process gaps, and international law risks? The context that I'm thinking about is Euro Clear has approved a $90 billion loan, not a $90 billion forfeite. These are our closest allies.

[00:26:04]>> Uh is there any risk in us seeking forfeite versus taking an alternative approach?

[00:26:13]>> If I understand your question correctly.

[00:26:17]Um and by the way, we are uh contributors to uh we're providing a major loan ourselves. I think it's what 5 billion um as part of uh >> yeah of a different loan >> of the G750 $50 billion loan uh to uh to Iraq. Um the Europeans are clearly moving in the direction of seizure in the event that reparations are not paid by Russia. So the loan and the collateral that sits in euro clear is tied to reparations and um it's not outright forfeite and the legislation that is being proposed here would give uh the Canadian government whether it's uh the 22 billion uh and that's somewhat complicated there. But uh the 200 million >> um uh uh we would uh we would essentially be applying that under similar conditions.

[00:27:31]So um as I said earlier there lots of safeguards in the legislation itself uh under SEMA and ideally you would do it under UN authorization but if UN authorization is not available because the security council is deadlocked then you do it with your coalition partners.

[00:27:52]Um so I don't think there's any suggestion in this case and I would submit that would be uh the case in other potential cases going forward uh because it would have to be any kind of forfeite or exercise of custodial control right because the two examples I gave earlier you don't have to confiscate in order to repurpose you can do it with custodial authority but in order to have that custodial authority you still need bill S214 because the executive otherwise will not be able to exercise that custodial authority. So there's a spectrum here.

[00:28:33]Obviously forfeite is the most extreme case.

[00:28:38]>> Thank you uh Senator Coyle to be followed by Senator Dasco.

[00:28:42]>> Thank you Mr. Chair and thank you to our our witnesses. This is really helpful to us at this at this juncture as we are uh studying this bill and of course when you're later in the questioning many of my colleagues have asked my my earlier questions so I'm going to uh m uh Dr. Hamson, I'm going to ask you about all of the readiness. So, elements, you know, so you we we you're saying we need um the authority uh in Bill C, Bill S 214 that closes the gap on the the missing pieces, gives the hammers and the whatever we need for our executive to to exercise authority. Um you've mentioned the infrastructure uh the preparation of the international compensation fund and the uh claims commission. Those are pieces of a puzzle. Is there more to it that needs to be in place that Canada needs to uh participate in um in that whole ecosystem if you like of of elements that are needing to be in place to act um you know quickly uh to move money uh in the direction it needs to go in order for Ukraine to uh rebuild.

[00:30:09]So the short answer, and I'll try to be short, is that if you don't have this important piece of legislation, you will not be able to go after state assets, state-owned assets. And that's not just, you know, Bank of Russia, but potentially other state-owned companies that have squirreled away or have holdings in Canada. And and they could be physical assets, too. And I gather there's some debate over that airplane that sits at the end of Pearson, whether it's a state-owned uh or privately held um uh aircraft. I think we'd all like to see it go. Uh but um uh the the short answer is that this is an important tool and if we're going to follow with our allies, the Europeans, uh in particular, um who uh in the worst case scenario, we're talking about the worst case scenario.

[00:31:17]If Russia pays reparations, no problem, right? because the loans are tied to those reparations. And one can consider an unintended consequence of regime change in Russia where you have a democratic leader who says uh you know we're we're going to pay up here for our sins, right? I mean Germany did that after the second world war. So um to a degree. So um uh then you don't have to exercise it. But this is kind of worst case scenario.

[00:31:54]Why should the Canadian taxpayer be stuck with the bill? Right? If you really want to get political about it, why if there's money sitting used for that purpose?

[00:32:08]>> Thank you very much. I'd like to acknowledge this. Senator Sear of Quebec has joined us and we will go to Senator Dasclli Pala. Senator Jarba.

[00:32:20]>> Oh, thank you chair and thank you. Thank you witnesses. Um with uh the Russian state assets, Russian assets frozen in many many countries in the world. And now after four years of freezing, it would seem highly unlikely that anybody would want to be returning these assets to Russia in in any foreseeable scenario except in a scenario of u of uh paying back the uh the damage that's been done.

[00:32:52]So um Professor Hamson, I wonder if you could comment on that. Some people have been saying it's not if we seize uh or confiscate the assets but a matter of of when. And do you do you see that uh as a as a I mean would you characterize the current situation that way? So that would be my first question. My second question to you is in your opening comments you suggested that perhaps the current situation we have is much more open to uh litigation and if with and with C214 we would provide clarity for Canada and therefore um we may not be subject to to as much um uh litigation going forward.

[00:33:40]I think that's uh I picked that up as a possible um implication of what uh of what you said earlier. So So first of all the question it seems unlikely we are going to give all of those all that money back to Russia and could you agree with that?

[00:34:01]Well, if the day comes, Senator, when there is a uh a peace agreement, um there would certainly be pressure uh to uh to lift sanctions and as soon as you lift sanctions, the money goes back.

[00:34:22]Um there's also I would submit the related question about Ukraine's needs now.

[00:34:33]There's a lot of damage now. There's reconstruction that needs to take place now and you've got a fairly substantial chunk of money that can be used uh for uh that purpose.

[00:34:52]uh not to mention to allow Ukraine under u uh I would say you know fairly dire economic circumstances to uh itself to uh uh buy military equipment and and other things that it needs to uh to fight uh against uh Russia.

[00:35:13]So this instrument um gives you the flexibility to do that. uh when it comes to state assets in the case of individual assets um uh yes litigation as we know is taking place and that is part of due process and it's not tidy and it's not quick but that's what distinguishes a democracy from an autocratic uh regime and why the legislation is structured the way it is.

[00:35:49]Thank you. Senators Jerba part of Senator Adler >> thank you chair and welcome to our witnesses. Thank you for your contributions that are uh very enlightening.

[00:36:07]I have a question for uh Mr. Hamson about the use of the powers. This follows on Senator Rallia's question.

[00:36:26]So I'll start again. Is that okay?

[00:36:28]Chair, can you hear the interpreter?

[00:36:41]This is the interpreter speaking.

[00:36:55]Testing. Testing.

[00:36:57]Is it working? Good.

[00:37:03]So, Senator, you have uh 30 seconds more. Thank you, chair. So, I will start again. I wanted to say thank you for your very uh enlightening contributions and I have a question for Mr. Hamson.

[00:37:21]It's in the uh the same vein as our colleague Senator Rallia.

[00:37:29]During the previous sessions, witnesses have communicated their concerns in terms of abuse of power by the uh executive so that uh parliamentary control would be important. I'm speaking about Mr. Lim and Ms. Ro witnesses who said that Ms. Ro said that the powers could be the subject of abuse if a future government were to have recourse to this bill if it's enacted. So I wanted to say that uh Mr. Lim, another witness asks for a uh more rigorous and direct control by Parliament and uh someone else who also wants supervision to be more rigorous.

[00:38:55]That is a risk.

[00:38:57]It's always a risk when um you confer executive power. It's uh a risk as we've seen in debates about the exercise of the Emergency Powers Act.

[00:39:12]But uh I would submit this does not go nearly as far as uh the uh authority that is granted uh under that particular legislation to the executive.

[00:39:26]First of all, there has to be a major breach of international law by another state including uh and it's very specific about it territorial aggression. Right.

[00:39:41]uh you can't just sort of willy-nilly turn to this instrument to start confiscating uh the the uh the assets of uh of another country.

[00:39:54]Um I'm also struck by the fact that um were this legislation to pass it would uh uh have all parties support.

[00:40:07]Um and I think that sets an important precedent in terms of parliamentary practice that um even in the event of aggression you would look for all party support to uh exercise the authority uh under uh this legislation.

[00:40:28]>> Thank you.

[00:40:30]Uh Senator Adler to be followed by Senator Deacon.

[00:40:33]>> Thank you Mr. Chair.

[00:40:35]So before the appointment to this chamber, I was in the rhetoric business for my entire adult life. My question is uh for the uh our guests who are Ukrainian Canadians. Um do you think that u because we're talking specifically about Canada here, but we could talk about Canada, we could talk about the message to the world. Do you think that that the rhetoric matters?

[00:40:58]And do you think the rhetoric has been dampened by the overuse of words that are at the moment words that don't have much impact on average human beings? Words like war, conflict, even the word genocide, which is now repeated by so many faces in so many places that it too does not have tragically the impact that it once did. So I'm just wondering whether one needs to be more specific about the rhetoric and the visuals behind the rhetoric. We hear about kidnappings. That's serious.

[00:41:32]That's a serious word. We don't see pictures. We don't see videos. Not of the children, not of the parents. There are murders outside of bombings that we don't see the victims, whether it's the corpses or the families. Rape, serious word. But once again, we don't see what needs to be attached to make those words stick to have impact. The Russian war against Ukraine is not just a war and it's not just a conflict. It's all of these other things. And I'm just wondering if it's if it's anything that you think about when it comes to the question of how much impact is the Ukrainian community having on the world.

[00:42:20]>> Thank you for your comments, Senator. I I I appreciate them. Um I think the Ukrainian community uh and and the general public, they become desensitized to these things. Um we saw the international community move quite quickly when the horrors of BHA were exposed.

[00:42:36]Um and now it's an everyday drum. I suspect that until the conflict is over and until uh people see the scale uh with their own eyes as many international leaders did when they went there um uh it's hard to it's hard to motivate people. It's hard to keep top of mind. Um you know uh it's a bit shocking for me when you when you mention to policy makers that you know in fact they're mobile crematoriums and it brings images of the Holocaust forth.

[00:43:07]Um and there's very little reaction. Um that's a shame. Um so I would agree with your comments. It's uh it's discouraging. Um but I mean we do important work in reminding people um even with rhetoric uh that it's important to not lose sight of the the heinous crimes that are taking place every day. But you think the world is seeing the crerematoriums and once again not to rehash the visuals of of all these important words but the actual visuals you know once again kidnappings a kidnapping when you don't see a picture of the kid isn't the same when it comes to conveying the message and and trying to impact on on on minds.

[00:43:55]I think it's a product of of the uh current media cycle and the way that those images get transported. It's very difficult to get on the agenda after many years.

[00:44:05]>> Thank you.

[00:44:05]>> Thank you.

[00:44:06]>> Thank you very much, Senator Deacon, please.

[00:44:08]>> Thank you. And thank you to my uh colleague Senator Adler. My question partly was similar to his, but now I'm going to take it to um sanctions. So I'm wondering uh and thank you of course for being here for our colleagues at the Ukrainian uh Kan Congress. As you know, Canada has heav he heavily sanctioned Russia since the outset of this war on aggression, but there are those that think it might be all bark and no bite and so the the impact. So my question is if we are looking at these sanctions and repossession at the time when you you say that Ukraine needs it, they're desperate, will this have an impact uh with Ukraine on the ground.

[00:44:57]>> Um to to echo uh professor's comments, I mean yes it will have an impact. I mean uh look uh some of you brought up the plane. I mean, I I spoke to the Minister of Justice the other day and he updated us on on what is going on with the plane. I mean, there are 50 shell companies involved with the plane and uh and uh numerous appeals. So, um you know, you need resources in order to target these sophisticated schemes. Um this is just another tool in the bucket that the government can use to pursue some of these assets.

[00:45:30]>> I don't know if you >> Thank you.

[00:45:32]>> Thank you very much. That's the end of the first round, but I'm going to ask a question, and it's also uh to Mr. Corvovich. Um, Ukrainian Canadian Congress is well known. You've been before this committee before and before other committees, too, but you also have links to similar associations and organizations outside the country. And I'm just wondering how much this issue of frozen assets and repurposing figures in your discussions with uh related groups.

[00:46:08]>> I don't want to draw comparisons uh but our sister organizations around the world uh you know have varying degrees of sophistication, resources and ability to influence government policy. So our cousins in the states have a bit of a different battle than we do here and we are of course very uh grateful for the the environment we find ourselves with in. Um can you speak to some of the global efforts?

[00:46:36]Um, I mean this is an issue that uh Ukrainian communities across uh the world are are seized with currently and really the debate came to the forefront in Europe over this $90 billion loan uh and the fact that the European leaders agreed to give it and then it was stalled for months uh for other political reasons. So I you know that that uh uh issue itself kind of made it um more urgent to actually seize the assets so that uh uh you know single governments that are part of our uh uh sort of allied uh support for Ukraine can't unilaterally stop a policy that's supported by everybody else. So uh our communities, Ukrainian communities in Europe are certainly part of efforts to to convince those governments to to move quickly there. Uh in the US, of course, you know that we don't need to talk much about the Trump administration here. I know everybody here knows the the impact of that and that is something that our colleagues in the states have to deal with uh uh more directly than we do. But it is uh the the short answer to your question is that uh for all Ukrainian communities around the world, this is a a pressure point that they're trying to uh uh impress upon their governments.

[00:48:11]>> Thank you, Mr. Zakowski. Um colleagues, uh we have five senators for round two and we have about 10 minutes. So, if you do the math, that's two-minute rounds uh for each of you, starting with Senator McDonald to be followed by Senator Woo.

[00:48:26]>> Thank you, Chair. Um, do we make any distinction between stateowned assets and privately owned assets or should we make any distinction? I'm just thinking just thinking from my own if I was a private investor from Russia somewhere else and let's assume that there's good people everywhere. Um, should they be treated the same way as state actors, state assets?

[00:48:55]>> Well, it depends if those those assets were were uh stolen from the Russian people and then employed to uh, you know, through an oligarchic scheme. I mean, we distinguish between individuals or oligarchs that have profit profited from Russian state corruption. So, >> is there a way to is there a way to determine that? I wonder.

[00:49:17]Well, there's I mean our government our our uh foreign affairs minister sanctions individuals based on their connection with the with the Russian government and actions that they take in support of it. So there is no blanket ban on you know or blanket seizure of Russian uh private assets. there are only freezing of assets that are connected to someone or a company that is engaged in in support of the Russian government and Russia's war. Uh and there is a distinction as well between the private assets and the and the state assets in our law in the 22 budget implementation act. the Canadian government has has the power to s to seize privately held assets. So for example, a Russian oligarch that has assets in Canada would be can be subject to to seizure. Uh and this bill would would simply extend that authority to to sovereign state assets as well.

[00:50:26]>> Thank you. Senator Woo has generously yielded his lot. So, uh, there may be a little bit more time for overrun on questions. We'll see.

[00:50:38]>> Senator Al Zyak. Oh, suddenly we have more senators asking for this.

[00:50:43]>> Yeah, human behavior happened.

[00:50:46]>> Senator Zach, >> thank you, Chair. And, uh, my question is again to Professor Hamson. Professor Hamson, in your assessment, could Bill S 214, if enacted, uh be applied in Canada to victims of Russian aggressions beyond Ukraine like uh whether states or individual victims uh for example uh in cases uh such as Africa, Libya, Syria uh where reconstru Construction and accountability remain urgent but under resourced. And what would be the risks and opportunities there?

[00:51:35]Theoretically, yes. But it has nothing to do with the act itself. That would be an executive decision that um presumably the prime minister and the cabinet would would make in terms of how the assets are to be repurposed and that is a policy question.

[00:52:06]Um in the case of individual assets um again it's a policy question.

[00:52:23]It's one of the reasons why, and I'll be very brief here, why there is an argument to be made to create some kind of international mechanism, an international um uh anti-corruption court that could deal with these kinds of cases where different claimments could come forward to make their claim, but we're not there yet.

[00:52:49]>> Thank you. Thank you very much, Senator Coyle.

[00:52:53]Senator Jer Senator Dasco.

[00:52:55]>> Thank you. Um this question is for Dr. Hamson. Um my colleague uh Senator Harter asked a question about unintended consequences and we talked about the negative uh risks associated possible risks associated with this. What would be the unintended consequences of not doing this?

[00:53:25]That's a great question. Um, one of the consequences could be that the war ends.

[00:53:40]Europe has decided that it's going to, you know, there are no reparations coming from Russia, so it's going after the money.

[00:53:51]and the holdings that are in cash deposits with Canadian financial institutions under Euroclar.

[00:54:00]Uh the Russians um decide to litigate that and say that money doesn't go back to Eurolear, it goes to Russia because Euroclear is under Belgian law, Belgian jurisdiction, European Union jurisdiction.

[00:54:18]But those account holdings, if they're held with the Canadian financial institutions, are subject to Canadian law.

[00:54:27]So we could find ourselves odd man out there that the Europeans have said we're confiscating and the money that's in Canada or the 22 million goes back to Russia because sanctions are being lifted and the war is over. So that's that's potentially an under consequence.

[00:54:54]Thank you senators and then Senator Dascll both quick.

[00:55:02]>> I wanted to come back uh to my question about abuse of powers.

[00:55:10]I want to come back to my question about abusive powers to uh ask you if there are preventive mechanisms or mechanisms or supervision that you would recommend for bill S 214 if it were to be adopted because we can have an executive that behaves properly but that could change in the future.

[00:55:42]>> Dasco to ask her question and then both can be answered because we're running out of time.

[00:55:47]>> Thank you, chair. Actually, my question was a reverse question of of Senator Coils and it was as an un unintended positive consequence.

[00:55:58]Perhaps taking this move would enhance our international reputation if we pass 214.

[00:56:06]Okay. So, it looks like both are for Professor Hamson.

[00:56:09]>> Yes.

[00:56:10]>> I don't want to hog the mic here. Um I'm sure my colleagues on the panel have views on both the abuse of power and uh inter you know the international consequences. So maybe I could I know the question was directed at me but I think I've said quite a lot. So >> um certainly senators uh I I would echo the professor's uh messaging on this and I would also say that you know we we expect the government to be judicious.

[00:56:44]Um we appreciate that there's all party consent uh and we we we would expect that the the implementation is in the in a similar vein taken very seriously. Um, but I don't think it's for us to determine uh what those uh um uh you know concerns about the abuse of power.

[00:57:04]I mean what the what the guard rails on that should be. That's that's I think for for the senators to figure out or the government to figure out. Uh we we will just echo the position that we think this should be used judiciously.

[00:57:19]U I'd just add one thing to that is that uh if we look at similar legislation in Canada like on sanctions there has not to my knowledge been any u examples of abuse of that power by the executive.

[00:57:34]The minister has wide >> discretion >> breadth to sanction individuals and entities and I think does so and has done so fairly uh uh uh judiciously and and correctly to the extent that that we've seen and not you know there hasn't been a flurry of over courts overturning these decisions or something like that that would lead one to think that that the minister is is abusing this authority 30 30 seconds please Dr. Hamson >> SEMA SEMA has clear thresholds in terms of how uh executive powers to be exercised. It involves threats to international peace and security gross violations of human rights. This is not an unrestricted hunting license for the executive to go confiscating assets.

[00:58:27]>> Thank you very much. Uh this has been a very useful session I think for the for the committee and on behalf of the committee I'd like to thank our witnesses uh Fen Hamson, Danilo Corvovich and Norris Zakidowski for being with us uh today. Uh with that uh colleagues we will suspend briefly to allow our witnesses to leave and to install the next panel.