Bill C-61 · 40th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Assets of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act
An Act to provide for the taking of restrictive measures in respect of the property of officials and former officials of foreign states and of their family members
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedMarch 3, 2011
- Debated in principleMarch 3, 2011
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMarch 10, 2011
- Passed the second chamberMarch 22, 2011
- Became lawMarch 22, 2011
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Stephen HarperPrime Minister
- A. Raynell AndreychukSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Deepak Obhraithanks colleagues for quick passage and notes the bill has all needed safeguards
- Pierre Paquetteglad to fast-track the bill to ensure assets of corrupt officials are frozen
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
What it set out to do
On 3 March 2011, The Minister of Foreign Affairs introduced Bill C-61, An Act to provide for the taking of restrictive measures in respect of the property of officials and former officials of foreign states and of their family members (Freezing Assets of Corrupt Regimes Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-61 permits the Government of Canada, at the request of a foreign state, to freeze the assets or restrain property of foreign politically exposed persons where the Governor-in-Council has determined that the country is in a state of turmoil or political uncertainty. It would permit such an order without requiring evidence of criminality or specific identification of assets. Assets would be frozen for a period of up to five years. The Freezing Assets of Corrupt Regimes Act also provides that the Minister of Foreign Affairs may recommend revoking or repealing an order if the person does not meet the standard of a “foreign politically exposed person”; may issue permits for dealings with certain property; and may issue certificates in cases of mistaken identity or provide exemptions for reasonable expenses.
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
How it changed on the way
51% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (2,621 words introduced, 2,688 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill's core asset-freezing powers and definitions stayed intact from introduction to royal assent. The Act title changed from Regimes to Foreign Officials and a new parliamentary review section was inserted.
- The short title of the Act was changed.
Before: “This Act may be cited as the Freezing Assets of Corrupt Regimes Act.”
After: “This Act may be cited as the Freezing Assets of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act.”
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The Act mixes clear numerical penalties and defined terms with broad subjective triggers such as ministerial opinion and 'interest of international relations'. This leaves core decisions open to prolonged debate rather than quick application of fixed rules.
Open to argument
“that the Governor in Council considers necessary”
Replaces objective criteria with the decision-maker's own view of necessity.“the making of the order or regulation is in the interest of international relations”
Uses an open-ended policy judgment instead of a testable factual standard.“If the Minister has reasonable grounds to believe”
Subjective belief test invites disputes over what counts as reasonable.“in the opinion of the Minister, consistent with this Act”
Permits permit conditions to rest on the Minister's personal assessment.
Clear-cut
“liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years”
Supplies a fixed maximum sentence that requires no further interpretation.“ceases to have effect on the day that is five years after the day on which it comes into force”
Sets an automatic expiry date that is mechanical and verifiable.“within 15 days after it is made”
Provides a precise calendar deadline for tabling.
Discretion. The Governor in Council and Minister retain wide latitude to decide when orders are issued, what activities they cover, when permits are granted, and whether mistaken-identity claims succeed.
Challenging the law itself. Vague standards such as 'considers necessary' and 'in the interest of international relations' could support a vagueness or overbreadth argument under s. 7 of the Charter.
Disputing a charge under it. Accused parties can readily dispute whether they had 'reason to believe' property belonged to a listed person or whether their conduct met the 'wilfully contravenes' threshold.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
no evaluation found
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.