Repurpose Frozen Assets for Aid

Summary#

This bill creates a legal path to take assets in Canada that were frozen under sanctions or anti‑corruption laws and repurpose them to help people harmed by human rights abuses and forced displacement. A court would decide whether specific frozen assets are linked to serious abuses or significant corruption and, if so, can order the funds paid into court and distributed for humanitarian and refugee purposes (Bill s. 5–6, s. 8). It also requires a public registry listing the names tied to frozen assets and their values (s. 4).

• Creates a public Frozen Assets Registry with names and values of frozen assets (s. 4).
• Lets a superior court order frozen assets paid into court, sold, or otherwise dealt with, and lifts the original freeze for those assets once a court order takes effect (s. 5(1)–(2)).
• Sets a “balance of probabilities” test to link assets to gross human rights abuses, forced displacement, or significant corruption before repurposing (s. 6).
• Requires notice to anyone who may have a valid interest, including foreign states, and allows them to present evidence (s. 7).
• Allows courts to distribute funds to individuals, entities, or foreign states for victims, humanitarian relief, or refugee support, with reporting and possible use restrictions (s. 8).
• Mandates a 5‑year parliamentary review of how the Act works (s. 9–10).

What it means for you#

• Households and communities

  • You may see more funding flow to organizations that provide humanitarian aid or refugee services, if a court orders distributions for those purposes (s. 8(1)(b)–(c)). Timing depends on case‑by‑case court orders.
  • No new taxes or fees are created by this bill. It does not change eligibility for benefits or services. Data unavailable on any indirect fiscal impacts.

• Refugees and forcibly displaced persons

  • You could benefit from aid funded by repurposed assets, if courts direct funds to programs that serve you or your host communities (s. 8(1)).

• Non‑profits, charities, and international organizations

  • You may be eligible to receive court‑ordered funds for humanitarian or refugee relief. If you receive funds, you must report to the court on how you spend them and may face use restrictions set by the court (s. 8(2)).

• Financial institutions and asset custodians

  • If you hold a frozen asset, a court may order you to pay it into court or sell it and pay the proceeds into court (s. 5(1)(a)–(b)).
  • Once a repurposing order takes effect, the original freeze no longer applies to that asset (s. 5(2)).

• Foreign nationals and others associated with frozen assets

  • The Minister must publish your name (or entity name) and the value of the frozen asset in a public registry (s. 4).
  • Before any repurposing order, the court must give notice to anyone it believes may have a valid interest and may hear your evidence (s. 7).
  • The court applies a balance‑of‑probabilities standard to decide whether the asset is associated with specified abuses or corruption (s. 6).

• Courts and governments

  • Provincial superior courts will hear applications, give notice, assess evidence, and oversee distributions and recipient reporting (s. 5–8).
  • The Minister of Foreign Affairs must maintain the public registry (s. 4). Parliament must review the Act within 5 years (s. 9–10).

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• No explicit appropriation or multi‑year funding is included in the bill (Bill text).
• Registry creation and maintenance costs: Data unavailable (s. 4).
• Court administration and litigation costs: Data unavailable (s. 5–8).
• No revenue changes are specified; funds paid into court are to be distributed by court order, not treated as general government revenue (s. 8).

Proponents' View#

• Increases accountability by moving beyond freezing to repurposing assets linked to abuses, with judicial oversight and a defined evidentiary standard (s. 5–6).
• Delivers practical help to victims, displaced persons, and host communities by allowing distributions for humanitarian relief and refugee support (s. 8(1)(a)–(c)).
• Improves transparency through a public registry listing names tied to frozen assets and their values (s. 4).
• Protects due process by notifying interested parties, including foreign states, and allowing them to present evidence before any order (s. 7).
• Adds spending safeguards by requiring recipients to report on use of funds and allowing courts to prohibit certain uses (s. 8(2)).

Opponents' View#

• Broad judicial discretion to “otherwise deal with” assets (s. 5(1)(c)) could lead to inconsistent outcomes across provinces and legal uncertainty for holders of assets.
• Publishing names and values in a public registry before final court disposition may cause reputational harm or disputes over accuracy for persons or entities associated with frozen assets (s. 4).
• Using a balance‑of‑probabilities standard, rather than a higher threshold, may increase the risk of repurposing assets later found not sufficiently linked to abuses or corruption (s. 6).
• Implementation may strain courts and government capacity, due to notice requirements, hearings, and ongoing monitoring of recipient reporting, with no specific funding in the bill (s. 4, s. 7–8).
• Lifting the original freeze on assets once a repurposing order takes effect could complicate coordination with existing sanctions regimes and enforcement processes (s. 5(2)).