Appearing before the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade on May 6, 2026, World Refugee & Migration Council (WRMC) President and Carleton University Chancellor’s Professor Fen Osler Hampson delivered a forceful defence of Bill S-214, legislation that would strengthen Canada’s ability to dispose of foreign state assets under the Special Economic Measures Act.
The Committee hearing included senior officials from Global Affairs Canada, the Department of Finance, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and representatives of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress to examine the implications of allowing frozen Russian state assets to be redirected toward Ukraine’s reconstruction and recovery.
In his testimony, Hampson argued that the proposed legislation is both legally defensible and morally necessary in response to Russia’s ongoing aggression against Ukraine.
“The bill does not undermine state sovereignty,” Hampson told senators. “It reflects the modern understanding that sovereignty entails enforceable obligations and cannot shield against grave breaches of international law.”
Drawing on the evolution of international law, Hampson noted that concepts of sovereignty have shifted significantly over time. He pointed to the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, contemporary human rights norms, and evolving interpretations of state immunity as evidence that states cannot act with impunity while continuing to benefit from the protections of the international system.
Hampson emphasized that international law has already evolved from the doctrine of absolute state immunity toward a more restrictive framework, particularly where states engage in commercial activities or violate core international obligations.
“Bill S-214 operationalizes the international law doctrine of countermeasures,” he explained, arguing that Canada and its allies are justified in taking proportionate action in response to Russia’s violations of international law.
A central theme of Hampson’s testimony was the broader public interest at stake.
“The issue is whether Canadian taxpayers should continue to bear the costs of Russia’s war, or whether Russia’s own assets should fund Ukraine’s recovery efforts,” he said.
Hampson also addressed concerns that seizing state assets could create instability in international financial systems or discourage foreign investment in Canada. He argued that these concerns are overstated and fail to account for the exceptional nature of Russia’s actions.
He cautioned senators against accepting arguments that effectively create impunity for states engaged in aggression or mass violations of international law.
At the same time, Hampson acknowledged the importance of ensuring that any asset seizure regime operates within a transparent legal framework and in close coordination with international partners. He stressed that Canada’s actions would be strongest if aligned with broader G7 and allied efforts.
Throughout the hearing, Hampson repeatedly framed the debate not only as a legal question, but also as a test of international resolve and political will.
His testimony also reflected the WRMC’s broader longstanding focus on the relationship between corruption, governance failures, and forced displacement.
Bad governance that too often causes forced displacement is almost always associated with corruption. Grand corruption weakens and distracts governments, making it less likely that they will meet their responsibility to protect their own populations. At the same time, the theft of international aid discourages donors and compounds the challenge of funding assistance for refugees and internally displaced populations.
The WRMC previously addressed these issues in its report Appel á l’action : transformer le système mondial d’aide aux réfugiés, which stressed accountability and argued that when stolen funds are found offshore, they should not only be frozen, but also confiscated and repurposed for the benefit of displaced populations.
That principle helped inform Canada’s existing Special Economic Measures Act asset seizure framework, which drew in part on the proposed Frozen Assets Repurposing Act advanced by the WRMC alongside former Senator Ratna Omidvar.
Hampson’s testimony reinforced growing calls among policymakers and civil society organizations for democratic states to move beyond sanctions alone and toward concrete mechanisms that hold aggressor states and corrupt officials financially accountable for the consequences of war, instability, and displacement.
The WRMC continues to advocate for stronger international anti-corruption measures, including the repurposing of frozen and seized assets, strengthening accountability frameworks under principles of restorative justice, and broader reforms to the international anti-corruption regime.
Hampson also returned to the broader evolution of international norms, including the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, arguing that sovereignty cannot serve as a shield for aggression, grand corruption, or grave violations of international law that fuel instability and displacement.
Hampson’s intervention before the Senate committee reflected the WRMC’s broader commitment to strengthening international accountability while supporting long-term recovery and stability for populations affected by war and forced displacement.
Find out more about the WRMC’s work on Repurposing Assets for the Forcibly Displaced at wrmcouncil.org/FARA.
