Foreign Affairs committee  I'll just add that the minister explained one of the reasons why the word “entity” was being added to Bill S-8. The intent behind that is to make sure that multilateral sanctions directed against non-state actors—groups such as the Taliban, Daesh, ISIL or al Qaeda—are covered by the new proposed paragraph 35.1(1)(a).

Foreign Affairs committee  I would like to just briefly explain. The way UN sanctions work is that they are imposed against a country as the target to try to change that country's behaviour. However, when a travel ban is imposed, individuals are always listed by the committee responsible for that United Nations Security Council resolution, so it designates particular individuals who are subject to the travel ban as part of the overall sanctions against a country as a whole.

Foreign Affairs committee  Yes, that's a very fair point. There is no expressed definition in the act, but as with any legislation, a term is going to be interpreted, having regard to its purpose and context. The purpose and context here is all about implementing multilateral sanctions, primarily United Nations Security Council resolutions.

Foreign Affairs committee  No, not as it's used.

Foreign Affairs committee  The proposed amendment is to retain the new paragraph 35(1)(c.1) to avoid the inadvertent repeal of that provision.

Foreign Affairs committee  As for the (c.1) provision, it remains unchanged from as enacted in Bill S-223, so I believe it does apply to permanent residents and foreign nationals, but the Bill S-8 inadmissibilities on sanctions only apply to foreign nationals.