Bill S-8

An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, to make consequential amendments to other Acts and to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations

This enactment amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to, among other things,
(a) reorganize existing inadmissibility provisions relating to sanctions to establish a distinct ground of inadmissibility based on sanctions;
(b) expand the scope of inadmissibility based on sanctions to include not only sanctions imposed on a country but also those imposed on an entity or a person; and
(c) expand the scope of inadmissibility based on sanctions to include all orders and regulations made under section 4 of the Special Economic Measures Act .
It also makes consequential amendments to the Citizenship Act and the Emergencies Act .
Finally, it amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations to, among other things, provide that the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, instead of the Immigration Division, will have the authority to issue a removal order on grounds of inadmissibility based on sanctions under new paragraph 35.1(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act .

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues. This does not happen often, but I will say it: For once, we all agree.

It is like the bill we are debating now, Bill S‑8. Quite simply, we want consistency. The idea is to impose measures against individuals or states, but especially individuals. Top of mind for us all right now are Russian oligarchs, but Iranian groups or groups from other nations could be targeted by sanctions. They would be denied entry or could be removed from the country on those grounds.

The bill will impact a number of laws. I have read the legislative summary, and it is quite complex. There is the Special Economic Measures Act, the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, or Sergei Magnitsky law, and the United Nations Act. The aim is to amend a pile of legislation to ensure that Canada's system is consistent when it comes to imposing sanctions on foreign offenders. There is no point in mincing words: They are criminals, people who have made populations suffer or simply, which is no better, usurped their country's, their nation's, economic wealth and who come to a country like Canada to lead a nice, quiet life.

There have been too many cases in history of war criminals and people who committed horrible crimes and were finally discovered in a southern country at the age of 89. For 40 years, they had relaxed by the pool or at the beach, with their drinks in hand while the people they made suffer never recovered. There were those who died, the children who were injured or killed, and the women who were raped. In the face of all these horrors, we must take a consistent approach and bring them to justice.

However, this does raise questions. My Conservative colleague who spoke just before me raised a very pertinent question. He wondered why this arrived in the House on December 12. I do not know if anyone will vote against it. We always have that right, but I do not believe it will happen. I think that the bill will pass rather unanimously. I think we can pass it quickly and move on to something else.

How did it take two months for the bill to be introduced in the House? During that time, people have been in Canada getting a free ride. That is the issue. These are people who are targeted by sanctions who are taking advantage of the quality of life, health services and so on that Quebec and Canada have to offer, and they are getting away with it. I have a hard time with that.

When we talk about the Magnitsky law, we talk about people who were tortured and mistreated. I am thinking about Evgenia Kara-Murza, whom I had the great privilege of meeting at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights a few months ago. She holds her head high, courageously, and talks about her husband as much as she can. Her husband is currently imprisoned in Russia by people who have already poisoned him twice. I invite members to stop for 30 seconds and try to imagine being in that situation. She is touring western countries, trying to drum up international pressure and have people talk about her husband as much as possible, hoping to save his life.

How can we allow people who poison dissidents, who imprison them without cause and who create hundreds of political prisoners to come to Canada or Quebec to live a nice, quiet life? We cannot do that. That is why the House is unanimous.

Inadmissibility on the grounds of sanctions will be added to the grounds of security, human rights violations, criminality, organized criminal activity, health grounds, financial grounds, misrepresentation, non-compliance with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and family inadmissibility. The grounds for inadmissibility in the bill also apply to individuals who are alleged to be members of non-state organizations, such as terrorist groups.

Incidentally, there are ways to identify terrorist groups. Yes, there are groups that should be on the list and are not yet, but it is in the works. Still, it is possible to blacklist terrorist groups, implement specific sanctions for those people and take away certain rights. If it can be done in that context, why is it not possible to create a list of criminal organizations as a means to control illegal firearms? I do not understand that.

I hope nobody catches any of the flu viruses, which are pretty bad. That is why I have been absent a few times in recent weeks, but I have been keeping an eye on what is going on in the House from afar. I am very proud of my Bloc Québécois colleagues, who very capably dealt with the firearms management crisis the government caused and who demanded additional meetings with experts. We are fortunate to have a group of hard-working, professional people here. Those people are, of course, the Bloc Québécois members.

I was watching all of that from afar, and I found it very sad. I think it is a good thing when members of terrorist organizations are banned from entering the country. We do not have to do these people any favours. However, why are we doing favours for known gang members who party on the weekends wearing their colours and vests? I do not understand that.

This is not about democracy. It is about weapons trafficking. My colleague from Rivière-du-Nord, who is a member of the justice committee, introduced a brilliant bill on criminal organizations. I invite the government members to use it to draft a bill along the lines of the one we are currently examining. We do not have to give a chance to criminals, abusers and those who make others suffer.

This bill is a no-brainer. The Bloc Québécois thinks that Canada and Quebec should be a safe haven for people fleeing war, but not for those who cause wars and make people in their home country suffer. It should also not be a safe haven for thieves, con artists, criminals or profiteers.

Therefore, I invite everyone to quickly vote in favour of this bill. Before I conclude my remarks, I just want to mention a concern that we should be vigilant about as we move forward. Earlier, my NDP colleague made a good point about parliamentary oversight for the bill's next steps, and I believe that is very pertinent. Nevertheless, I want to raise another concern.

The oligarchs living here have money. They can pay for lawyers and take legal action. One of my concerns is that these people could launch lawsuit after lawsuit, claiming that the deportation is not justified. They would get to remain here for several more years enjoying themselves, while the people who suffered at their hands are dead or in prison in their country of origin. If any of my colleagues can respond to that, I thank them in advance.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I look at the very principles of the legislation. It is encouraging, whether it is from the former Conservative speaker or the member across the way, that it would appear there is once again legislation before the House for which there is unanimous support.

We see that as a good thing when we take into consideration Canada's leadership role on the global scene in regard to the issue of human rights. This does deal with it in a very direct fashion. I believe Canada plays an important role. When we look at what is taking place in countries like Iran, and in Ukraine with the war, it sends a very strong message.

Could my colleague provide his thoughts in regard to the type of support we are witnessing today, recognizing the need to reflect in our refugee policy, or even immigration in general, that those who have caused harm abroad or who have violated human rights would not have a place through immigration to Canada?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North and I agree on something for once. It is clear that we are getting close to the holiday season. I am happy to agree with him.

I agree with him wholeheartedly. That is why this bill is a no-brainer, why it is obvious and why I think there is unanimity in the House. He is right to point that out.

However, we wondered why it took so long to get to the House. Because of the inner workings of government, my colleague may have some answers that we are not privy to. Many of us do not understand why it took so long.

Of course, we need to move quickly to pass this bill, because war criminals and people who have made people suffer should not be allowed to take it easy in Quebec and Canada while the citizens of their home countries are still suffering. We have a moral duty to ensure consistency with all the other sanctions we have imposed.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé for his speech.

All political parties support this bill, but I do not think the Liberals are taking it very seriously. Thousands of people, including Canadians of Iranian origin, had to demonstrate in order for the government to decide to show that it is taking the situation seriously. Now the government is beginning to study this bill a few days before Parliament rises.

Does the member agree that the Liberal government is prioritizing this bill at last only for political reasons, not because it is a real priority and not because it is genuinely motivated to do so?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague very much for his question, which was well articulated in French.

Yes, I quite agree, unfortunately, and I think that is all too common.

However, the bill before us today is truly necessary and urgent. We will therefore support it in the good faith that we always show here in the House, by making constructive proposals to improve things.

My colleague is right to point out the government's typical Liberal inconsistency, given that it took so long to begin working on this bill. I digressed earlier in my speech to talk about gun control and to point out that the government amateurishly started proposing amendments after the committee had finished studying the bill. That is unacceptable. Anyone looking at this from the outside would wonder how it is possible. This is just one more question to add to the pile of questions about the government's way of doing things. Let us hope that voters remember this.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy sitting on the agriculture committee with my colleague.

I think there is general agreement in the House that what is in the bill is important, and there is a desire to get it to committee. However, I would like to ask for the member's and the Bloc Québécois's thoughts on what is missing from the bill and what could be worked on at committee. For example, the bill would not fix the lack of parliamentary oversight. The bill would not fix the clarity issue of why some names are added to the sanctions list and some are not, and for what reasons.

I am wondering if he could offer some thoughts on those two key missing pieces that could have been in the bill and how that might inform committee work at the next stage.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to return the compliment to my colleague regarding the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Once again, he has contributed a very relevant comment. The possibility of adding parliamentary oversight is indeed something that the committee should study. It will also be important to see how this legislation is enforced over time.

My colleague raised some important questions. I also raised a very relevant question earlier regarding concerns that wealthy people might resort to legal action in order to stay here. Those shortcomings will have to be addressed in committee.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a challenge to speak right after my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé. I would like to say hello to him today, as I have not seen him in a while. I am happy to see him again and I wish him a happy and healthy new year. I think that is the least I can do.

I have been listening to the debate today. There is an expression that says that we cannot be against apple pie. I am trying to find a better expression for the holidays. I could say that we are not against tourtière or Yule logs. I really feel that this is a bill that we all agree on.

This makes us all feel good at the end of a year during which the government all too often introduced poorly drafted legislation and another party obstructed proceedings for the sake of being obstructionist and engaging in petty politics. How many times have I said that we need to have more children like us in the room? Actually, I mean the adults in the room. It is what it is. It is a reasonable and sensible position for a bill that must be passed.

I rise to speak to the bill that amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to reorganize existing inadmissibility provisions relating to sanctions to establish a distinct ground of inadmissibility based on sanctions. The bill also seeks to expand the scope of inadmissibility based on sanctions to include not only sanctions imposed on a country but also those imposed on an entity or a person. Finally, the bill would also expand the scope of inadmissibility based on sanctions to include all orders and regulations made under section 4 of the Special Economic Measures Act. This will give it even more weight.

The bill also makes amendments to the Citizenship Act and the Emergencies Act. Finally, it amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations to, among other things, provide that the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, instead of the Immigration Division, will have the authority to issue a removal order on grounds of inadmissibility based on sanctions under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

I will begin by saying a few words about the bill, I will talk about different points of view, and then I will list some gaps we should address.

First, the bill, which passed in the Senate, updates the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to make inadmissible to Canada individuals and their immediate families that are targeted by sanctions such as those imposed on businesses and individuals. This is being done in the wake of escalating Russian aggression since the illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022. That is the context for this measure.

In 2017, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development released a report, known as the Sergei Magnitsky report, that addressed the approach to Canada's sanctions regimes. Recommendation 13 of that report called for the act to be amended. Sergei Magnitsky was a Russian lawyer who died in a Russian prison under murky circumstances after exposing the corruption of Russian oligarchs. His death gave rise, in both Canada and the United States, to sanction regimes under the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, also known as the 2017 Sergei Magnitsky law.

I will digress for a moment, because this phenomenon still exists in 2022. My thoughts are with the journalists who died under some very disturbing circumstances in Qatar after speaking out against what was going on with LGBTQ+ communities. Quite frankly, it is worrisome. I hope this bill will be a first step and send a clear message that this is unacceptable in this day and age.

Implementing this recommendation became a priority last spring in the aftermath of the invasion of Ukraine, as I said.

As my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé pointed out, inadmissibility based on sanctions might relate to security, international human rights abuses, criminality, organized crime, health, finances, misrepresentation, non-compliance with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act or family inadmissibility. It is quite interesting.

Furthermore, the bill's inadmissibility provisions include individuals who are members of a non-state organization, such as terrorist groups. That aspect is explicitly set out, which is good.

This bill should pass unanimously. As I said, when I was listening to the debates in the House, I got the impression that there was unanimous agreement. That was the case in the Senate. After all, the bill simply brings the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act into line with the economic sanctions that Canada wants to impose and must impose on belligerent countries.

On May 17 the bill was introduced in the Senate before ending up in the House of the Commons. This bill has been on quite a journey.

Rumour has it that the Conservatives and the NDP are going to support the bill. Something interesting is happening as we wrap up before the break. I would like to note what Senator MacDonald said in his speech in the Senate:

I recognize that there is jurisprudence that permits literally anyone to make a refugee claim at a Canadian port of entry, but I remain concerned that there are those who will inevitably abuse this, using it as a loophole to gain entry into Canada. Such individuals can then potentially use the slow pace of our judicial system against us in order to remain in Canada for an extended period of time.

There is not only the slow pace of the system, but also the means that some may use to take advantage of the situation, including financial means.

The Bloc Québécois has called for and defended economic sanctions against Russia's unjustified invasion of Ukraine. We believe that the individuals targeted by these sanctions should be inadmissible because the sanctions are a foreign policy tool intended to combat violations of international law and international standards.

Quebeckers and Canadians alike want Quebec and Canada to be a safe haven for people fleeing war, corruption and persecution, not a refuge for criminals. That has been said before, and we are saying it again.

It is all the more important to say this because Granby, in the heart of my riding, is a safe haven, so we experience all kinds of situations.

Quebec wants to be a safe haven for people who have fled war, corruption and oppression. Those who start wars and violate human rights should not be welcome here.

That is why the Bloc Québécois will support Bill S‑8.

According to the UN, Russia has committed numerous war crimes during its invasion of Ukraine, including bombings of civilian areas, a large number of executions, torture, ill-treatment and sexual violence. That list could grow longer as the conflict drags on, which would be even more worrisome.

From the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine, the Bloc Québécois has brought forward several concrete proposals that were accepted by the government to accelerate the intake of Ukrainian refugees and families. We asked that the requirement for the collection of biometric data for certain categories of refugees be lifted and that flights be chartered. I know that some MPs, like the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, even took Ukrainian families into their homes. In such cases, what can we do to work together and welcome these people?

Moreover, it is vital that we update the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act so it is consistent with all the sanctions regimes. Bill S‑8 updates this law to add sanctions to the list of grounds of inadmissibility. We want everything to be consistent.

I should note that the bill is consistent with the different sanctions implemented under the Special Economic Measures (Ukraine) Regulations pursuant to the Special Economic Measures Act. These regulations have been amended more than 40 times since Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its invasion of Ukraine in February. We can see that progress is being made.

If Bill S‑8 is passed, the various sanctions regimes, such as those under the United Nations Act, the Special Economic Measures Act, or organizations of which Canada is a member, like NATO, could apply. I think that is a good thing.

The bill would allow a border officer to turn back a sanctioned individual upon arrival, which would greatly simplify the deportation process. The bill also fixes gaps in the law to ensure that Canada respects the rights of asylum seekers and meets its international obligations in terms of taking in refugees.

A person who is targeted by a sanctions regime can claim asylum, but they cannot be granted permanent residence as long as they are targeted by a sanctions regime. That adds weight.

Bill S‑8 would also make it possible to fix the problems that were introduced by the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, which prohibited individuals targeted by a sanctions regime to file a claim for refugee protection. This correction is in line with the refugee convention, which states that only refugees who have “been convicted by a final judgement of a particularly serious crime, [constitute] a danger to the community of that country”. That is sufficient grounds to remove a refugee from the country or deny them entry. That is very interesting.

I would like to close with a bit of compassion. Beyond what we are talking about today and the debate on how people are welcomed here, I want to point out that, as I mentioned, Granby is a welcoming place. I would be remiss if I did not mention the incredible work of Solidarité ethnique régionale de la Yamaska, or SERY, which is celebrating its 30th anniversary this year.

This organization helps newcomers to integrate. It does an outstanding job for the community and the region. As its slogan so eloquently says, “our home is your home”.

I would like to end on that positive note and recognize the good work of the people at SERY.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the member might be aware that, in 2017, we had a standing committee through foreign affairs that came up with a number of recommendations that are, in fact, reflected in the legislation as brought forward through the Senate. We know we have a fairly substantial legislative agenda, especially going towards the end of the year.

Everyone seems to be very supportive of the legislation. As I said, it has already been before a standing committee indirectly. I am wondering if the member would not agree that it would be a wonderful thing to pass this legislation or attempt to get it to committee before we break at the end of the week.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all parties in the House today, including our own, are unanimous about wanting this bill to go forward. That is worth noting.

In his question, my colleague spoke about a 2017 report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. However, this is 2022. He said that this was put forward again because of the Senate. It is strange that the government did not introduce this bill itself given the recommendations made in 2017. We have been waiting five years for something on which there seems to be a consensus and that is just common sense. These people have done unspeakable things.

That delay is unfortunate, and I hope that the rest of the process to get this bill passed will move more quickly.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would not want to take anything away from members of Parliament and their efforts on this particular project. As I pointed out, members from all political entities came to the foreign affairs committee recognizing the issue.

We did have a pandemic, as I am sure the member will recall. It was not that long ago, and I am sure it had a bit of an impact. The pandemic was more than just two years. We also have to deal with the current and huge number of pieces of legislation that were brought forward. However, it does not mean that the government did not prioritize.

The Senate often brings forward legislation that is a priority for the House of Commons. The point I hope would be recognized is that, whether in the Senate or the House of Commons, there seems to be a great deal of political will.

I would suggest that the timing is right. We have seen, this year, the war taking place in Europe. We are seeing human rights violations in Iran. This is a good piece of legislation and a good reflection of the fact that it is time for Canada to send a strong message. Would the member not agree?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the opportunity to expand on that.

To be clear, that was 2017. It was before the pandemic. It is true that the current context and what we have seen this year have put the issue of what we do with these criminals back on the agenda. I just hope that we will be able to work together to speed this bill through the process because these recommendations date back to well before the pandemic. It should have been done a lot faster. In particular, I hope the committee will be able to follow up. What we are hearing is interesting.

How to administer this law is an interesting question. Voting for a bill is one thing, but following up and making sure it is implemented is another. We will look at the list of people who will be affected by the bill. Let us hope that goes better so we can move forward and fix some of the problems members have been raising this afternoon. That is my hope.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to get the member to comment on the fact that the House requested that the government list the IRGC as a terrorist organization. It has not done so. A bill like the one before us comes through, and it just seems to be a bit of a distraction from the fact that the government has not followed through with the will of Parliament. I am wondering if the member has any comments on that.