Foreign Affairs Committee on May 16th, 2023

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Garnett Genuis]

Thank you.

Next, I have Ms. McPherson.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I prefer the Bloc amendment, as well, so I will withdraw NDP-1.

Some of the context I have here is.... I recognize it's a new test. I recognize there is the ability for folks to interpret how this is identified. Having clarity and context makes sense, but I will withdraw NDP-1. Perhaps we can vote on the Bloc amendment. It seems unlikely to pass, but we should go through the process.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Garnett Genuis]

Thank you, Ms. McPherson.

As a matter of process, once something's on the table, it belongs to the entire committee.

Is there unanimous consent to withdraw the proposed amendment?

There's no unanimous consent, so we will proceed.

I have Mr. Epp next on the speakers list. This is still speaking to NDP-1.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Yes, that's correct.

In listening to your explanation, is it clear then that no individuals have been deemed inadmissible on the basis of sanctions purely because of their affiliation to a country or foreign state? Is it always tied to an additional test as outlined by IRPA?

[Richard St Marseille]

Yes. That's absolutely the case.

[Scott Nesbitt]

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.

For example, sanctions against North Korea were imposed by the UN in 2006. There are 80 individuals who have been designated. It's only those 80 individuals who are inadmissible under this provision. The most recent UN sanctions are against Haiti. Only one person has been designated. It's only that one person from Haiti who is inadmissible under this provision.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Garnett Genuis]

Thank you.

Are there any other members who wish to speak to this?

Ms. McPherson, your hand is still up. Is that residual? Okay.

We can now proceed to a vote. Is there a desire for a recorded vote?

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I'd like a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Garnett Genuis]

The amendment is defeated and there is now an opportunity for Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe to move his amendment.

Go ahead, please.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

During the debate on the NDP amendment, I was in fact debating the amendment that we put forward. We've looked at it from every angle.

Everybody knows the reasons why we moved it today. I thank the officials for their comments. Now, the parties need to take a position on this amendment, because we already discussed it during the debate on NDP-1. We should move to a vote right now and then move forward with the rest of the bill.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Garnett Genuis]

Thank you, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

Are there members wishing to debate this amendment?

Mr. Zuberi.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Just on the first point, I want to highlight what you mentioned earlier in terms of a foreign entity. That will add on a new layered test.

We just had a conversation around country and how that's been tried, tested and true as a term and a concept, but the foreign state concept isn't tried, tested and true in the same way. It would require a whole set of rethinking with respect to the legislation. Is that correct?

[Richard St Marseille]

In principle, it's a similar scenario. As I mentioned before, the multilateral sanctions under paragraph 35(1)(c) of the IRPA, which reference country and individual, can be imposed under the Special Economic Measures Act, in addition to the United Nations Act and any other act that allows Canada to act in concert with an association of states.

By importing a definition from only the Special Economic Measures Act and not ensuring that same definition applies in all of the other sanctions-issuing legislation, it creates additional complexity and additional tests. It could create a lack of coordination from an inadmissibility perspective, rather than a coordinating effect as intended by the proposed amendment.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Understood. It won't necessarily, but it could.

On the second point, with respect to the amendment in terms of part (b), it says, “by adding after line 19 on page 3 the following:” and then it has this quote.

Can you comment on that part of the amendment and what the ramifications are of that?

[Richard St Marseille]

Thank you for your question.

With respect to that particular amendment, we noted preliminarily that it is already missing an element that is in the Special Economic Measures Act. There is a reference to “organization” that is missing, which is actually quite important for the effectiveness of the sanction.

It would create a disharmony between the two statutes, if adopted.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Can you elaborate further on the organization piece of its not being there?

[Richard St Marseille]

It's missing from this definition. It's an element that's missing from the proposed definition here. It's in the sanctions-issuing statute.

[Scott Nesbitt]

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).

The term “entity” was deliberately not defined so that it would be interpreted broadly enough to capture those organizations however they are characterized. The fact that, here, the term “entity” is being defined in a way that references or seems to draw from the Special Economic Measures Act definition of “entity” but doesn't include the term “organization”—which is in that other act as well as the Magnitsky act—suggests that maybe it would not cover the very groups that this amendment was intended to cover.

That is the concern.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Garnett Genuis]

Next up we have Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, Mr. Oliphant and then Mr. Epp. We'll proceed in that order.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you for the clarifications. You are right. Unfortunately, the second part was badly drafted. I cannot introduce a sub-amendment to amend my amendment, but if someone else wants to do it, that would be great. We should keep the first part and delete the second part. Officials have rightly pointed out that the second part is badly drafted.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Garnett Genuis]

Thank you, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

We'll now go to Mr. Oliphant.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I am going to make a subamendment actually. That's exactly what I'd like to do. We actually have no problem with part (a) of the amendment—sanctions on a person, entity or foreign state. We can live with that. However, part (b) we would like to strike from the amendment, the part about “after line 19”. The subamendment is to strike the (b) section of that amendment.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Garnett Genuis]

Since Mr. Epp had been up to speak on the amendment, I'll just ask if there's anybody—Mr. Epp or otherwise—who wants to speak to the subamendment. If not, we'll proceed to a vote on that. Is there a need for recorded division, or are we agreed to adopt the subamendment?

(Subamendment agreed to)

Now that we're back to debate on the main amendment, we'll go to Mr. Epp and then to Mr. Oliphant.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

I have a question for the officials. I'd like to get back to the definition of “entity”. I hear you about the problem being not only with SEMA but also with the UN sanctions. Is this the first time that “entity” is going to be defined in legislation? Is it defined nowhere else, be it IRPA, SEMA...?