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

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill for her advocacy on this issue.

I am wondering if she could elaborate on her comments with respect to inauthentic visa letters.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am glad that my colleague asked this question. There was another item in the Globe and Mail article today that suggests Senator McPhedran, in her affidavit, may have submitted information about what were deemed to be 640 inauthentic letters to the government in September 2021.

During that time, my office communicated with IRCC, GAC and other officials over 30 times between August 2021 and July 2022 on the file that pertains to this issue. Not once did they confirm or deny that these visa letters were authentic or inauthentic.

This story raises all sorts of concerns about who knew what in the government and at what time. At the very least, if this is true, my constituent missed the opportunity to apply for a real program. How many other people did this happen to?

I implore colleagues of all political stripes to work to get the ministers, the former ministers and the staff named in this affidavit in front of committee or in front of the House to find out what really went on. This has huge implications for the fairness, equity and integrity of our immigration system.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, we are here today to talk about Bill S-8.

For the benefit of my constituents who may be interested in following this, this is an act that started its life in the other place last spring, a month or so before Parliament rose for the summer. We are talking about 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. Last year the senators recognized a gap in the law when it comes to the imposition of sanctions against other countries, organizations or individuals for breaches of international peace and security, as well as human rights violations.

The senators fast-tracked this legislation. It is not contentious; I believe that it has support from all parties in this House. However, unfortunately, it has been parked in the House of Commons since early fall; here we are finally, in February, debating it. What was the delay? What is the holdup? This needs to be done.

Bill S-8 was introduced around the time of Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, an unjustified and unjust war, as well as a blatant violation of international law. The timing of this legislation is not coincidental. It is in response to the illegal invasion by Russia of our friends in Ukraine. The legislation is long overdue.

What does it do? Canada, on the advice of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, can and does impose sanctions against certain states or individuals. This is pursuant to two Canadian laws: the Special Economic Measures Act and the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, better known as the Magnitsky law.

Under the Special Economic Measures Act, Canada can impose sanctions for grave breaches of international peace, gross and systemic human rights violations, or actions of corruption. Under the Magnitsky law, Canada can impose sanctions on foreign nationals responsible for, or complicit in, extrajudicial killings, torture or gross human rights violations.

I think some background on the Magnitsky act would be useful. There was an American investor by the name of Bill Browder who worked and invested in Russia's economy after the end of the Cold War and after Russia opened up its economy to the world. Mr. Browder made a lot of money, and this drew the attention of the Russian government, particularly President Vladimir Putin. Mr. Browder's Russian lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky, also drew the attention and the ire of the Russian authorities. Eventually, Mr. Magnitsky died in a Russian prison, clearly the victim of an extrajudicial killing, torture and a gross violation of human rights, to pick up on the language of the Magnitsky law.

Mr. Browder escaped Russia, and he used his influence to convince first the United States and then other countries, including Canada, to adopt what has become known as Magnitsky's law. This law, different of course and unique in each country, gives the government of said country the right and ability to impose financial sanctions against foreign nationals responsible for or complicit in such horrific actions. That is what the Magnitsky act does.

We had Mr. Browder appear before this Parliament's Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development on February 10, 2022. One should note the timing. This was exactly two weeks before Putin's Russia invaded Ukraine. We did not know that was going to happen, although there was every indication that Putin would invade Ukraine. He had done it before, in 2014, shortly after Russia hosted the Winter Olympics in nearby Sochi. At that time, Putin waved goodbye to the world and then ordered his tanks into the Crimean Peninsula. Sadly, the world looked the other way.

Seven years later, in 2022, Putin was again flexing his muscles. Again, he was hoping and expecting that the world would be looking the other way. That was the context when Mr. Browder was giving his testimony in front of the committee.

Here is a sample quote from his testimony:

As we look forward to what to do about this situation, my prescription is to make a list of the 50 biggest oligarchs who look after Putin's money. There's no mystery as to who these people are...and we hit these people with Magnitsky sanctions.

We start with five before any invasion to show Putin we're serious. We then tell him that he has 10 days to pull back from the border or we hit him with another five. If he invades, we go after the rest of the 40. I believe this would stop Putin in his tracks and he wouldn't invade Ukraine.

Three months later, on May 17, 2022, Mr. Browder appeared before another committee, the public safety committee, as part of its Russia study. Again, members can note the timing. This meeting was taking place a few months after Putin invaded Ukraine. At that meeting, this question, or challenge, was put to Mr. Browder: “Clearly, sir, something went wrong. Either the [Canadian] government didn't take your advice or you underestimated Putin's propensity for recklessness.”

This was part of Mr. Browder's answer:

[Putin] had looked at our conduct, and when I say “our”, I mean Canada, the United States, the EU and the U.K. He looked at our conduct after the invasion of Georgia—nothing; after the illegal annexation of Crimea—effectively nothing; after MH17 was shot down—nothing; and, after the Salisbury poisonings—nothing. He was of the opinion that we weren't going to do anything if he invaded Ukraine.

Historians will debate whether we and our allies acted soon enough, used our sanctioning tools aggressively enough or did everything in our power to convince Putin to back off. Maybe we could have done more, and with the benefit of hindsight we probably could have done more and should have done more, but I want to be clear that it is not as if we are doing nothing.

After the illegal annexation of the Crimean peninsula in 2014, Canada, using the existing Special Economic Measures Act, imposed sanctions against more than 1,000 individuals and 241 entities linked to ongoing violations of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. Our Magnitsky Law, parenthetically, came into force some time later, in 2017.

Could we have done more to help our Ukrainian friends? Probably, but today we are doing the right thing. It is a small thing, but it is the right thing. With Bill S-8, we are amending three other acts and expanding certain regulations, all pertaining to how we deal with refugees, and in particular refugees who, when they present themselves at our border, are discovered to be subject to sanctions under one or another of our sanction laws.

The Minister of Public Safety put it this way: “Banning close associates and key supporters of Putin's regime, including those responsible for this unprovoked aggression from entering our country is one of the many ways in which we're holding Russia accountable for its crimes.” We can argue about the veracity of the statement that Canada acted in “many ways” to hold Russia accountable. That is a debate for another day.

I would wrap it up with the following comment. I and all members of Parliament, I believe, have been banned from entering Russia. After this bill, Bill S-8, passes, Mr. Putin and his oligarchs would be banned from entering Canada, as if they would ever risk being arrested and tried for war crimes.

This is important legislation. It is non-controversial. It has the support of the Conservative Party. We have always been in support of the decisive use of our Magnitsky act to sanction international criminals. It needs to be passed soon, and it needs to receive royal assent to close the gap.

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

Madam Speaker, I was encouraged by many of the thoughts the member expressed to the House, and I would concur that at the end of the day there is a powerful statement to be made by the passage, with what appears to be unanimous support, of the principles of the legislation.

I just want to ask the member to provide his comments in regard to the following. When we have legislation of this nature and it ultimately passes, or at least the principles of the legislation, it sends a wonderful and powerful message abroad, a message that people need to hear, which is that there is a consequence to regimes that behave against Canadian values. Would he not agree?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, yes, the Magnitsky act sends a powerful signal to the world that Canada stands up for human rights. If we read the story about Sergei Magnitsky and how he was mistreated for doing the right thing, then I believe the world will support us as we try to do our best to support human rights around the world. It sends a good, strong signal. I am happy this is one act that, and I am assuming this, we can pass unanimously in the House, and that too would send a strong message.

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

Madam Speaker, as mentioned, Conservatives are supportive of this legislation, but the challenge we have is the difference between words and implementation. I think of how the terrorist Omar Khadr was given $11 million, and we rolled out the carpet. He killed an American sergeant in Afghanistan. These are the problems we have. Again, with Iran, the Liberals have the right words, but not the actions with respect to the Islamic regime to bring in these actions and call the guards on these terrorist organizations.

I wonder if the member could make some comments about what the Liberals say and do with respect to following through with legislation.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge is absolutely right. Just because we have a good law does not mean that it is administered properly. He raised a couple of examples about citizens of this or other countries who go abroad to be involved in terrorist actions and then come home again and how they are treated.

It is a problem in Canada as well. Not only are ISIS war brides coming home, but also the men who were actively involved in working with the ISIS army, and they apparently have a right to come back to Canada. How are we going to treat them? Are they going to be charged here under our criminal laws? Do we have evidence available to properly prosecute these people who have committed crimes abroad? Are we going to be able to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? These are the real challenges that face Canada while living in a dangerous world.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member brought up in his intervention how we would treat people who are returning from overseas who have potentially committed serious war crimes or crimes against humanity, so I wonder if he can elaborate on this matter.

We have individuals who either fought for, fought with or are sympathizers of ISIS, such as Daesh, a proto-state across the Syrian-Iraqi border, which committed many war crimes and crimes against humanity. We now have families who are returning from a specific camp, which is not too far from Al-Hol, and there are about 70,000 POWs and families being held there. These Canadians are being returned to Canada and being charged with offences by the RCMP for travelling overseas to join a terrorist organization and for membership in a terrorist organization.

Beyond that, it is very difficult for the Canadian government to prove crimes that were conducted overseas because the collection of evidence may not be ideal, the witnesses might be dead or we just may not know who they are, so I wonder if the member can elaborate on that, because that is part of the sanctions regime as well.

Some of these individuals should be sanctioned, and others are not being sanctioned because we do not know they are members of these organizations. This is where the difficulty lies. We can only make someone inadmissible if we know what they are being made inadmissible for, and part of this legislation will need a lot of intelligence-gathering.

I am just putting a lot of ideas on the table for the member to add to the discussion.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, indeed, this creates a big challenge for Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada recently ruled that so-called ISIS brides must be returned to Canada, and furthermore, that even men who fought for ISIS or Daesh, if Canadian citizens, have the right to come back to Canada pursuant to section 6 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is the section of our charter that states that we all have the right to stay in Canada, leave Canada or, if we are out of Canada, to come back to Canada.

The Supreme Court of Canada has recently decided that these ISIS warriors have that right. They will be arrested as soon as they land at a Canadian airport, but as the member indicated, where does the proof come from, where does the evidence come from to convict these people under our Criminal Code? The evidence is probably overseas. The witnesses are certainly overseas, and the witnesses are not going to be co-operative. We do not have the power to subpoena witnesses from overseas. This is a challenge for the government, and we are looking forward to seeing how it is going to resolve that problem.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will continue on a different track. Within Bill S-8 there are provisions for persons to be able to challenge being put on a sanctions list, but they are not allowed to appeal being found inadmissible to Canada if they happen to be on a sanctions list.

During the debate on the sanctions for the victims and the Sergei Magnitsky act, there was a provision put in to ensure that a person who was to be listed would have the right to redress and could actually challenge the fact that they had been put on the list.

In this piece of legislation, one of the provisions specifically says that one cannot appeal the fact that one has been found inadmissible, because the idea is that the process has already taken place in the sanctions regime. I wonder if the member would comment on how there would be no right of appeal if one is found inadmissible to Canada under IRPA, which would be expanded to all those who find themselves on one of the sanctions lists that Canada keeps, and that they would need to seek redress for sanctions but not for inadmissibility.

Does he see this as a problem or as an opportunity to expedite the deportation of individuals who find themselves in Canada unlawfully?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's questions are becoming more challenging. Yes, indeed the intent of the legislation we are talking about today is to prohibit people who have been sanctioned from entering Canada. There are some people who have been sanctioned, maybe just because they live in a state that we have sanctioned, and they do have the right to appeal, to have their case heard and to convince Immigration Canada to allow them to come into Canada. I do not know how these cases are going to be worked out if we do not have the ability to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that people are actually guilty of crimes.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded vote, please.