Bill S-226 (Historical)

Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law)

An Act to provide for the taking of restrictive measures in respect of foreign nationals responsible for gross violations of internationally recognized human rights and to make related amendments to the Special Economic Measures Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

This enactment enacts the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law) to provide for the taking of restrictive measures in respect of foreign nationals responsible for gross violations of internationally recognized human rights. It also proposes related amendments to the Special Economic Measures Act and to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Sergei Magnitsky International Anti-Corruption and Human Rights Act

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured today to speak to Canada's active efforts to advance human rights; combat corruption, including through the use of sanctions; and continue to explore the possibilities of the bill.

Canada is committed to upholding the legacy left by Sergei Magnitsky in establishing a global framework to combat corruption and human rights violations. Whether by holding states accountable for violations, championing the rights of women and girls, indigenous peoples and vulnerable groups or by countering the threat of transnational repression, human rights remain at the core of our Canadian identity. These are values that are central to our foreign policy, as articulated by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. They are foundational and necessary for a secure society and to make a society prosperous.

I want to begin by thanking the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman for presenting this private member's bill, Bill C-219. The bill underscores a common objective that we share in the House, which is to work together to promote and protect human rights internationally and to modernize how Canada enacts sanctions.

I also want to acknowledge the work of the member for Northumberland—Clarke, who introduced a similar bill in the previous Parliament. Like its predecessor, Bill C‑219 highlights the important ways in which Canada protects international human rights.

Bill C-219, at its core, seeks to amend four laws, the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act; the Special Economic Measures Act, known as SEMA; the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, or the Magnitsky law; and the Broadcasting Act.

Bill C-219 is very well intentioned and includes important measures to modernize our approach. However, some provisions, as currently drafted, could inadvertently undermine individual or public safety and hinder the effectiveness of sanctions. We believe that the foreign affairs committee is absolutely necessary and is the right place to delve into this piece of legislation to make sure that it mirrors Canadian values and the objectives that we all share in the House regarding human rights and the protection of individuals and society.

I will summarize some of the key elements of the bill and identify areas where consideration in committee could add some important and significant value. While the government plays a central role in the protection of human rights, as governments around the world do, we are not alone in these efforts. Day after day, human rights defenders, activists, journalists, lawyers, community leaders and everyday citizens are the backbone of accountability and progress. Their insights, their lived experiences and their grassroots connections strengthen policy and democratic institutions around the world. Supporting them is not optional. It is an imperative. We need to especially stand by them when they are in peril.

“Voices at Risk: Canada's Guidelines on Supporting Human Rights Defenders” reflects the government's commitment to supporting their essential and courageous work. Canadian officials abroad adapt these guidelines to the local context and specific needs of each individual and each case. They do so to provide the most effective support and defence possible, often in close collaboration with our partners.

When a human rights defender who is at risk is a Canadian, regardless of whether they are a dual citizen, Canada considers this to be a consular case. These cases are monitored closely by Canadian officials providing consular assistance on a, usually, daily basis. This is part of the Vienna Convention.

While the bill seeks to protect human rights defenders, we have concerns that some of the specific elements could put the safety and security of human rights defenders, including Canadian citizens, at risk. I know that the safety and security of these defenders are paramount to all of us in the House, and I look forward to exploring these issues in greater detail at committee.

The government recognizes and values Parliament's role not only in studying sanctions but also furthering our sanctions regime, the tools to protect human rights and the tools to take on corruption and other crises.

The passage of a Senate public bill, Bill S-226, in 2017, was one example of Parliament's working to improve our sanctions regime as a response to human rights violations and acts of significant corruption. Two reports, tabled in the Senate and in the House in 2023 and 2024, respectively, showed how significant our work in this House is to make sure that government is responsive to the desires, the will and the aspirations of Canadians.

Sanctions are a key component in Canada's approach to protecting the rules-based order and in advancing human rights. Recently, we have seen the use of sanctions increase significantly as conflicts escalate in nature, such as in the case of Ukraine. Canada has sanctioned nearly 2,300 individuals and over 1,000 entities or vessels since 2022. It is an exponential increase in the number of sanctions that we have been doing. However, at the same time, we want to constantly re-examine our sanctions regime to make sure it is fit for purpose.

Our government remains firmly committed to ensuring that Canada plays a leading role in preserving and strengthening a rules-based international order. Sanctions are a critical tool for advancing this approach.

However, as I said, we need to update the sanctions tool box. I am very pleased that the member has added the concept of transnational repression, and I reflect on the fact that the Bloc Québécois has also seen this as an important new trigger for sanctions. We respectfully accept this and think it is an important addition.

However, we think the bill can be strengthened by adding some other triggers, such as migrant smuggling, foreign interference, cyber- and hybrid attacks, organized crime, undermining democracy and arbitrary detention. These are things that should also trigger the use of sanctions, as well as transnational repression.

I want to underscore that in all of this, we need to be evidence-based and thoughtful as we push on the sanctions to make them effective. We do not want to add cost to the system. We want to ensure that we find an effective way that is both profound and important, to ensure that the Canadian taxpayer is able to stand up and say, “These are dollars that are being well spent.” Therefore, I challenge the committee as well to look at the bill from that lens to ensure that we have an effective use of Canadian dollars as we promote human rights and as we defend our world against corruption. Transparency, accountability, parliamentary engagement, inter-agency co-operation and information are all things that could add costs but that could also be very effective and could be part of a tool box that would both be effective and save taxpayer money.

One section of the bill that, very frankly, I am less familiar with, because it is not in my wheelhouse, is the Broadcasting Act section. However, I understand, as we all do, that media is critical and important in the promotion of human rights. The broadcasting-related provision of Bill C-219 seeks to curtail the proliferation of broadcast content from licensed broadcasters found to be susceptible to influence from foreign actors, foreign persons or foreign entities, especially ones who have committed genocide or are under Canadian sanctions. This is something we all agree on. However, we want to test all the recommendations in the bill, which would become law, to ensure that they would actually accomplish this while preserving the freedom of the press.

In conclusion, we are eager for further debate on Bill C-219. We are ready to take it to committee. We want to support the member in his aspirations to look at the bill, but we also challenge and commend the committee to do its due diligence on the bill, to find out the way a parliamentary committee can make it more effective, to make it better to defend human rights and better to fight corruption, and to make it effective and sustainable to attack not only today's issues, but tomorrow's issues. This would be a piece of legislation that will last, so we want to make sure it is fit for purpose not only for today, but also for tomorrow.

Again, I want to thank the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman for his ongoing co-operation and conversation about the bill. I look forward to getting it to committee and having all members of the House, through their committee, be sure to make it the most effective bill possible.

Immigration and Refugee Act

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to speak at third reading of 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.

I am very interested in this subject because, early on in my career, when I was a student and a community worker, I worked with refugees a lot and I also worked in human rights. It was very hard sometimes. Our work was impacted by cases of people entering Canada under dubious or fraudulent pretexts. It was very disheartening to see these people, who had committed human rights violations and other serious offences in their own country, find refuge here in Canada. I think it is very important for Canada to use every tool at its disposal to punish all those responsible for violations of international law, such as human rights abuses.

As members know, sanctions have proven to be effective foreign policy instruments to hold bad actor regimes accountable for their blatant disregard for the rules-based international order. The government may choose to use sanctions in situations relating to a grave breach of international peace and security, gross and systematic violations of human rights, and significant acts of corruption. In reaction to the Russian annexation of Crimea and the most recent developments in Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine, Canada has imposed a series of individual and economic sanctions.

Sanctions may be enacted through a number of instruments, including the United Nations Act, the Special Economic Measures Act and the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act.

Under our legislation, sanctions against individuals and entities can include a dealings ban, which is effectively an asset freeze, and restrictions or prohibitions on trade, financial transactions or other economic activity. Canadians are also prohibited from dealing with sanctioned individuals, effectively freezing their Canadian assets. This tool to freeze the assets of those who have committed acts that violate human rights is really effective. It is incredible. Freezing their assets really gets their attention.

Canada's immigration system has a strong global reputation, in part due to its well-balanced enforcement system. For nearly 20 years, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or IRPA, has worked in tandem with our sanctions legislation to ensure that bad actors are found inadmissible to Canada.

The IRPA defines the applicable criteria for all foreign nationals seeking to enter or remain in Canada, including grounds of inadmissibility that would lead an application by a foreign national for a visa or entry to Canada to be refused. In the case of the inadmissibility provisions of the IRPA as they relate to sanctions, decisions are relatively straightforward. If an individual is explicitly identified under one of the sanctions' triggers, then they will be found inadmissible to Canada under the IRPA on that basis alone.

However, inadmissibility provisions of the IRPA as currently written do not fully align with all grounds for imposing sanctions under the Special Economic Measures Act, or SEMA.

In 2017, two new sanctions-related inadmissibility criteria were brought into force by the Senate bill, Bill S-226. Bill S‑226 ensured that foreign nationals sanctioned under the SEMA were inadmissible to Canada, but only in circumstances of gross and systematic human rights violations and systematic acts of corruption.

This approach meant that foreign nationals sanctioned under other provisions, such as “a grave breach of international peace and security”, which has been frequently used in sanctions imposed in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, were not inadmissible to Canada. In other words, this means that Russian individuals sanctioned under the SEMA may nevertheless continue to have unfettered access to travel to, enter or remain in Canada, unless they are inadmissible for other reasons. This is unacceptable.

As we know, Parliament previously identified this as a legislative gap in Canada's sanctions regime. In April 2017, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development released a report that recommended that the IRPA be amended. The objective was to designate all persons sanctioned under the SEMA as inadmissible to Canada.

That is what is proposed in Bill S-8. The proposed amendments would ensure that all inadmissibility ground relating to sanctions are applied in a cohesive and coherent manner. Bill S‑8 will align the sanctions regime with inadmissibility to Canada so that Russian individuals and entities, which were recently sanctioned because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and Iranian individuals and entities, which were sanctioned for supporting terrorism and their systematic and blatant human rights violations, are inadmissible to Canada.

These amendments are very important because they would enable the Canada Border Service Agency and officials at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to refuse to issue visas.

These important amendments would ensure sanctions have meaningful consequences from both an economic perspective and in terms of immigration and access to Canada. In adopting these measures, Canada would be sending a very strong message to the world that those who violate human rights are not welcome in our country. The Government of Canada will continue to stand firmly against human rights abuses abroad, and we will hold both Russia and all other bad actor regimes accountable for their actions. At the same time, the government remains firmly committed to protecting the safety and security of all residents here on Canadian soil.

I know I am almost out of time, but I want to say that this is a very important bill for all political parties in the House of Commons as well as for my constituents in Châteauguay—Lacolle. We believe in justice, and we want justice. For that reason, I implore all hon. members of this House to support this important and timely bill.

Motion in Amendment

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, the government will use every tool at its disposal to punish all those responsible for violations of international law, such as human rights abuses.

As members know, sanctions have proven to be effective foreign policy instruments to hold bad actor regimes accountable for their blatant disregard for the rules-based international order. The government may choose to use sanctions in situations relating to a grave breach of international peace and security, gross and systematic violations of human rights and significant acts of corruption. Russia’s continued war of aggression against Ukraine is just one example.

In reaction to the Russian annexation of Crimea and the most recent developments in Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, Canada has imposed a series of individual and economic sanctions. Sanctions may be enacted through a number of instruments, including the United Nations Act; the Special Economic Measures Act, or SEMA; and the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, the Sergei Magnitsky law.

The government may choose to use sanctions in situations relating to a grave breach of international peace and security, gross and systematic violations of human rights, and significant acts of corruption. Under our autonomous sanctions legislation, sanctions against individuals and entities can include a dealings ban, which is effectively an asset freeze, and restrictions or prohibitions on trade, financial transactions or other economic activity. Canadians are also prohibited from dealing with sanctioned individuals, effectively freezing their Canadian assets.

Canada’s well-managed immigration system has a strong global reputation, in part due to its well-balanced enforcement system. For nearly 20 years, Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, IRPA, has worked in tandem with our sanctions legislation to ensure bad actors are found inadmissible to Canada. The IRPA defines the applicable criteria for all foreign nationals seeking to enter or remain in Canada, including grounds of inadmissibility that would lead to an application by a foreign national for a visa or entry to Canada to be refused.

In the case of the inadmissibility provisions of the IRPA as they relate to sanctions, decisions are relatively straightforward: If an individual is explicitly identified under one of the sanctions' triggers, they will be found inadmissible to Canada under the IRPA on that basis alone.

However, inadmissibility provisions of the IRPA as currently written do not fully align with all grounds for imposing sanctions under the SEMA.

In 2017, two new sanctions-related inadmissibility criteria were brought into force by the Senate bill, Bill S-226. Bill S-226 ensured that foreign nationals sanctioned under the SEMA were inadmissible to Canada, but only in circumstances of gross and systematic human rights violations and systematic acts of corruption. This approach meant that foreign nationals sanctioned under other provisions, such as “a grave breach of international peace and security”, which has been frequently used in sanctions imposed in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, were not inadmissible to Canada.

In other words, this means that Russian individuals sanctioned under the SEMA may nevertheless continue to have unfettered access to travel to, enter or remain in Canada, unless they are inadmissible for other reasons.

This is unacceptable and runs in direct opposition to the government’s responsibility to protect our country’s residents. It also contradicts the very essence and purpose of these sanctions against foreign entities.

Parliament previously identified this as a legislative gap in Canada’s sanctions regime. In 2017, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, or FAAE, recommended that the IRPA, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, be amended to designate all individuals sanctioned under the SEMA, the Special Economic Measures Act, as inadmissible to Canada.

The legislative amendments we are discussing today under Bill S-8 respond to these recommendations and would help to further bolster Canada’s sanctions against bad actor regimes. Among other important amendments, Bill S-8 would help to ensure that all foreign nationals subject to sanctions under the SEMA are inadmissible to Canada. If passed, the current inadmissibility ground relating to sanctions would be expanded to ensure foreign nationals subject to sanctions for any reason under the SEMA would be inadmissible to Canada.

These important amendments would ensure sanctions have meaningful consequences, both from an economic perspective and in terms of immigration and access to Canada. In adopting these measures, Canada would be sending a very strong message to the world that those who violate human rights are not welcome in our country.

The Government of Canada will continue to stand firmly against human rights abuses abroad, and we will hold both Russia and all other bad actor regimes accountable for their actions. At the same time, the government remains firmly committed to protecting the safety and security of all residents here on Canadian soil.

Fully aligning the inadmissibility provisions with grounds found under Canada’s autonomous sanctions legislation will result in a significant increase in the number of sanctioned nationals being rendered inadmissible to Canada. These include individuals sanctioned as a result of their roles in grave breaches of international peace and security, resulting in serious international crises, as well as individuals sanctioned as a result of calls from international organizations. This includes sanctioned individuals from Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Iran, Myanmar, Syria, South Sudan, Venezuela, Zimbabwe and North Korea.

Without these proposed amendments, many of those who are sanctioned in these states may continue to access Canada and threaten the safety of all those who live in our peaceful country. Bill S-8 is urgently needed to address this gap in our current legislation. For this reason, I implore all hon. members in this house to support this important and timely legislation.

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

moved that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, for almost 10 months, Canadians have watched in shock and horror at Russia's unjust, abhorrent and illegal invasion of Ukraine. On February 24, 2022, without provocation, Russian forces initiated this egregious step, which is a blatant violation of international law, the charter of the United Nations and the rules-based international order.

The attacks have caused widespread devastation of Ukrainian infrastructure and property, as well as unnecessary deaths of Ukrainians, including civilians.

These actions are a continuation and acceleration of the violent steps taken by Russia since early 2014 to undermine Ukrainian security, sovereignty and independence. The Government of Canada is committed to supporting those fleeing the destruction and devastation in Ukraine and to providing a safe haven for those fleeing their war-torn home country.

As we said since the beginning, whether it is military, political or economic support, Canada will continue to be there for Ukraine and hold Russia accountable. In the face of such brazen disregard for the international order, the Government of Canada has responded to the Russian invasion of Ukraine through the use of economic measures, including sanctions, to send a clear and unequivocal message that the aggression displayed by the Russian regime will not be tolerated.

These measures apply pressure on the Russian leadership to end its senseless war, which has resulted in the loss of thousands of lives and caused indescribable suffering to the people of Ukraine. These measures are the latest example of Canada's unwavering commitment to Ukraine and its people.

Since the invasion of Ukraine commenced in February, the Government of Canada has imposed sanctions under the Special Economic Measures Act on almost 1,200 individuals in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus.

Further targeted sanctions are planned in response to Russian aggression, demonstrating that Canada is a leader in the international effort to hold Russian leaders accountable for this violent and unprovoked attack on Ukraine.

More recently, the Government of Canada imposed additional sanctions under SEMA against Iranian officials in response to the Iranian regime's ongoing grave breaches of international peace and security and gross human rights violations. These breaches and violations include its systemic persecution of women and, in particular, the egregious actions committed by Iran's so-called morality police, which led to the death of Mahsa Amini while in their custody.

Targeted sanctions have been imposed against senior Iranian officials and prominent entities that directly implement repressive measures, violate human rights and spread the Iranian regime's propaganda and misinformation.

The legislative amendments we are introducing to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act would provide Canada with much needed abilities to better align government-imposed sanctions with authorities related to immigration enforcement and access to Canada. The IRPA defines when a person is inadmissible to Canada and establishes the applicable criteria for all foreign nationals and permanent residents who seek to enter or remain in Canada.

However, IRPA, as it stands, is incongruous with our inadmissibility regime. Its inadmissibility provisions do not clearly align with the basis for imposing the majority of SEMA sanctions issued against Russia and Iran.

Issuing sanctions against these countries on the grounds of a grave breach of international peace and security, which has resulted in the serious situation that we see today, does not automatically trigger inadmissibility. This means that most individuals sanctioned pursuant to SEMA may nevertheless have access to travel to, enter or remain in Canada if they are not otherwise deemed inadmissible.

This runs counter to Canada's policy objectives with respect to the measured application of sanctions and restrictions on foreign nationals who are part of the Russian or Iranian regimes or who are key supporters of those regimes.

Legislative amendments are required on an urgent basis to align the IRPA sanctions inadmissibility regime clearly with that of SEMA.

That is why I am here today to introduce Bill S-8, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which would, among other things, expressly align the IRPA with SEMA to ensure that all foreign nationals subject to sanctions under SEMA would be inadmissible to Canada.

If passed, the current inadmissibility grounds relating to sanctions would be expanded to ensure that foreign nationals subject to sanctions, for any reason under SEMA, would be inadmissible to Canada. This would include foreign nationals sanctioned not only in Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and Iran but also sanctioned individuals from Myanmar, South Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, Zimbabwe and North Korea.

In addition, these amendments would also modernize the current sanction inadmissibility framework set out in IRPA.

Allow me to explain the importance of this legislation and why I am seeking to pass it into law.

The amendments of this bill would allow for all sanctions related to inadmissibility grounds to be treated in a cohesive and coherent manner; strengthen inadmissibility legislation that we already have in place rendering persons subject to sanctions inadmissible to Canada; ensure that the sanctions imposed by the Government of Canada would have direct consequences in terms of immigration and access to Canada; and allow Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada officials to deny temporary or permanent resident visas overseas and authorize Canada Border Services Agency officials to deny entry to and remove from Canada sanctioned individuals.

Once enforced, these amendments would apply to all foreign nationals who are subject to sanctions issued unilaterally by Canada and to their immediate family members. These changes would ensure that all Russian and Iranian officials sanctioned under SEMA, and their sanctioned supporters, are inadmissible to Canada.

Without the proposed amendments, those who are sanctioned in response to the situations in Ukraine and Iran are not necessarily inadmissible unless they have violated some other provision of IRPA. This proposed legislation would completely close that gap.

This approach also aligns with and builds on recent strong legislative activity.

For example, in the 2017 report by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, entitled “A Coherent and Effective Approach to Canada's Sanctions Regimes: Sergei Magnitsky and Beyond”, the committee recommended that the IRPA be amended to designate all individuals sanctioned under SEMA as inadmissible to Canada.

Subsequently, also in 2017, the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, also known as the Sergei Magnitsky law or Bill S-226, came into force. This act created two new inadmissibility grounds, which aligned with certain sanctions, provisions related to international human rights violations, and significant corruption. Subsequent amendments to the IRPR were also made, so that delegated CBSA officers, as opposed to the immigration division of the Immigration and Refugee Board, were empowered to issue removal orders directly at ports of entry for individuals inadmissible pursuant to the newly created sanctions inadmissibility provisions.

This ensured that these individuals would not have to be physically referred into Canada for admissibility hearings before the Immigration Division.

Finally, budget 2018 provided the CBSA with the necessary funding to work with Global Affairs Canada and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to ensure that inadmissible sanctions cases are identified as early as possible in the travel continuum to prevent them from gaining access to our country.

These investments and the effective work of border management and immigration officials in Canada and abroad support the proposed legislative amendments that I am seeking your support for today.

Furthermore, while funding from budget 2018 ensured the proposed amendments were completed in a timely manner, the timeline of this proposal was adjusted to realign with border management and public safety priorities related to the necessary COVID-19 pandemic response. Nevertheless, proactive development of the amendments in Bill S-8 has enabled a timely legislative response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and Iran's violent crackdown against civilian protesters.

Further to the work already done, there are additional complementary and coordinating amendments introduced in this bill, which are required to align inadmissibility provisions with the sanctions provisions while maintaining the integrity of both frameworks.

First, all the sanctions inadmissibility provisions will be treated in a cohesive and coherent manner. This includes, for instance, adding a temporal element to all the sanctions inadmissibility provisions, which means that a person is inadmissible only for as long as they remain on a sanctions list. In addition, as is the case today with IRPA, immediate family members of foreign nationals inadmissible for sanctions are also inadmissible. Similarly, existing provisions of IRPA with respect to immigration, detention and sanctioned individuals would apply to the new sanctioned grounds.

Second, further legislative amendments in this bill would ensure that the inadmissibility framework related to multilateral sanctions, such as sanctions issued in concert with the United Nations, would be expanded to include groups or non-state entities, as opposed to only when states are sanctioned, as is the case today. Currently, sanctions issued against groups and non-state entities, such as al Qaeda or ISIL, do not automatically trigger sanctions-related inadmissibility ground. The proposed amendments would further facilitate interdiction and enforcement for sanctions issued multilaterally.

Make no mistake, the proposed amendments would improve Canada's ability to identify and stop sanctioned foreign nationals before they can get to Canada. In the event that some do nevertheless arrive at our borders, delegated CBSA officers would have the authority to issue removal orders immediately at ports of entry for all those inadmissible for sanctions.

It is important to note that sanctions inadmissibility is the most efficient and effective mechanism to swiftly identify inadmissible persons as early as possible in the travel continuum and to deny their ability to acquire a visa to Canada.

While other inadmissibility provisions may be applicable to some sanctioned individuals, it should not be assumed that all sanctioned individuals are also inadmissible for other grounds. Moreover, other potentially relevant inadmissibility grounds, such as those relating to engaging in war crimes, require extensive investigation, case-by-case analysis, and hearings before the Immigration and Refugee Board before they can be applied and yield consequences. It is not expected to be the case that all individuals who are sanctioned can in fact also be found inadmissible for some other ground under IRPA.

Unless there is a clear and specific ground for inadmissibility in IRPA against given individuals, immigration and border officers do not have the discretion to deny access to Canada. These amendments are therefore vital to ensuring consistent alignment between inadmissibility and sanctions.

Bill S-8 will also support other inadmissibility and immigration enforcement measures being pursued with respect to Iran. Additional measures against the Iranian regime were announced on October 7. The Prime Minister announced that the Government of Canada would be seeking to designate the Iranian regime under IRPA. This means that in addition to the individual sanctions, the top 50% of the most senior echelons and the members of the Iranian regime most responsible for egregious serial human rights violations will be considered inadmissible to Canada once the regime has been designated, and indeed that has been done.

Other refinements are included in the proposed amendments in Bill S-8. For instance, we will correct an inconsistency with respect to refugee policy that was created through Bill S-226. The Sergei Magnitsky law rendered inadmissible foreign nationals ineligible to make a refugee claim. However, multilateral sanctions such as those issued under the United Nations Act do not have the same consequence in IRPA.

Similarly, the Refugee Convention itself does not identify sanctions in and of themselves as sufficient to warrant exclusion from refugee protection.

The proposed amendments in this bill would correct that asymmetry and ensure that foreign nationals are not ineligible to have a refugee claim referred to the refugee protection division of the Immigration and Refugee Board on account of being inadmissible solely due to sanctions in line with Canada's international obligations.

Given the measures in place to deny sanctioned individuals access to our borders, in the rare case in which an individual can apply for refugee protection in Canada, all foreign nationals inadmissible due to sanctions who are granted refugee or protected person status would not be eligible to become permanent residents while those sanctions are in place. This is a balanced yet firm approach.

In addition, should a person inadmissible due to sanctions be subject to removal proceedings, they would be eligible to apply for a preremoval risk assessment, ensuring a fair assessment of risks facing them upon removal from Canada.

In recognition of sanctions being a deliberate statement of government policy, further amendments are proposed to narrow the available pathways to overcome inadmissibility for sanctions within IRPA.

I believe that lifting of the sanction in and of itself is the mechanism by which the consequences of a sanction should be avoided. As such, the bill proposes to remove access to ministerial relief for individuals who are inadmissible for sanctions. Furthermore, individuals inadmissible for sanctions would not have access to an appeal of the inadmissibility decision before the immigration appeal division, nor may they make an application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, under our proposed amendments. Any request for recourse related to sanctions ought to be made to the sanctions-issuing body.

For example, individuals inadmissible due to sanctions imposed by Canada could submit an application for delisting to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

In addition, as with all decisions under IRPA, the federal court will continue to have jurisdiction to conduct judicial review of inadmissibility determinations on the basis of sanctions.

The bill also includes coordinating amendments to the Emergencies Act and the Citizenship Act to maintain and clarify existing authorities related to sanctions inadmissibility in those pieces of legislation.

Now more than ever, we must move to align the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act sanctions regime with the regime under the Special Economic Measures Act.

The senators have agreed to adopt the motion and, to quote Senator Omidvar, have marked this bill as “super urgent”. I urge members to review Bill S-8 with the same sense of urgency. The bill will provide Canada with much-needed authorities to better link government sanctions, as well as the authorities necessary for our immigration officials to deny access to Canada. It will also better enable us to contribute to concerted action with our international partners.

The bill we are introducing in the House today is a prudent and comprehensive approach that would allow our government to respond to the Russian and Iranian regimes' aggression with appropriate immigration consequences.

This legislation and these amendments would provide a clear and strong message that the Government of Canada's comprehensive sanctions framework has meaningful and direct consequences, not only from an economic perspective, but from an immigration and access to Canada perspective as well. Doing so would allow us to stand up for human rights both here and abroad.

International Human Rights Act

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to stand today to speak to Bill C-281, the international human rights act. I want to thank the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South for bringing forward this important piece of legislation, which would amend legislation I introduced in the House back in 2018, Bill S-226. My partner in crime in the Senate at that time was Senator Raynell Andreychuk, who worked very hard on that bill. She and I had had numerous meetings with the government, to the point where we had unanimous consent on the bill. The legislation we are debating today reintroduces some of the changes to the earlier iterations of Bill S-226.

We have to make sure everybody understands that we use Magnitsky sanctions to move in lockstep with our allies. When the parliamentary secretary says we want to have a coordinated response with our allies, our allies, whether it is the European Union, the United Kingdom, the United States or Australia, are all using Magnitsky sanctions. Unfortunately, the government has not used Magnitsky sanctions since 2018.

All the sanctions that have been brought against some of the corrupt foreign officials and gross human rights violators we are seeing today in the war in Ukraine, and what Russia has been doing with its kleptocracy, have all been under the Special Economic Measures Act. We know that act does not have the same teeth or accountability built into it as the Magnitsky law itself. Having Parliament provide a mechanism to put names on a list to present to the government through the foreign affairs committees of either the Senate or the House would provide more accountability, as well as debate and discussion as to why certain names should be added to the list.

I have worked with numerous communities for years to try to get more of these gross human rights violators and corrupt foreign officials on the list. We have submitted names to the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development and the Department of Justice, and none of those names have ended up on any sanctions list, either SEMA or the Magnitsky law. The Vietnamese community, the Cambodian community and Falun Gong practitioners have dozens of names of people proven to have committed gross human rights violations against citizens in those countries, yet the government sits idle.

Amending the Magnitsky act, as has been brought forward by my colleague from Northumberland—Peterborough South, would address that shortfall. It would allow communities and parliamentarians to come forward with names. Then, the ultimate accountability of the government would be to report back within 40 days as to why it is either taking action or not taking action. It would also file annual reports. The bigger goals are naming and shaming those committing gross human rights violations around the world.

We have to make sure we move forward with this legislation. I am glad we are getting to the point of probably having unanimous consent for sending this bill to committee, but I would say to my colleagues in the Liberal Party that, instead of trying to make a whole bunch of amendments to the bill at committee, they actually listen to the people who have suffered violations of their human rights because of corrupt foreign officials, the human rights violators who put their own ideology or wealth ahead of that of the citizens they are supposed to be serving.

We have to make sure we go back to using Magnitsky sanctions, just as our allies do, to ensure there is one declaration that these individuals have violated the human rights of their citizens, are corrupt, they are being held to account and cannot use Canada as a safe haven. I know the government has been apprehensive about using Magnitsky sanctions because it is required to report on financial institutions on a quarterly basis whether any of the names on the sanctions lists we have under Magnitsky are making use of our financial institutions to hide their wealth, or hiding their families here and taking advantage of our great universities. Those practices have to be monitored, and the best way to do that is through the amendments suggested in Bill C-281.

Sergei Magnitsky Legislation

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Sergei Magnitsky was a Russian lawyer, accountant and whistle-blower. While working on behalf of Bill Browder, he uncovered an elaborate tax fraud being carried out by the Russian government. For this, Sergei was arrested, beaten, tortured, and murdered in a Russian prison.

On October 18, the work of parliamentarians of all parties came to fruition when Senator Raynell Andreychuk's Bill S-226, the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, the Sergei Magnitsky law, received royal assent.

This legislation ensures Canada will not be a safe haven for foreign officials responsible for corruption and gross human rights violations. It is a tool to project our values abroad while protecting our own sovereignty.

Visiting Ottawa today is Sergei Magnitsky's widow Natalia and son Nikita. They are accompanied by Magnitsky's champion and human rights defender, Bill Browder. They wish to thank all parliamentarians for our unanimous support of Bill S-226.

On behalf of everyone here and in the Senate, I thank Mr. Browder and the Magnitsky family for their tireless efforts in defending human rights on the world stage.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall Ottawa

October 18th, 2017

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that Ms. Patricia Jaton, Deputy Secretary to the Governor General, in her capacity as the Deputy of the Governor General, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 18th day of October, 2017, at 1:00 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Wallace

The schedule indicates the bills assented to were Bill S-226, An Act to provide for the taking of restrictive measures in respect of foreign nationals responsible for gross violations of internationally recognized human rights and to make related amendments to the Special Economic Measures Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and Bill S-231, An Act to amend the Canada Evidence Act and the Criminal Code (protection of journalistic sources).

Export and Import Permits Act

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree completely with the comments my colleague made. It saddens me to do that because we have worked so well together on other pieces of legislation. I think of bill S-226, and I know through that work that he understands the important role Canada has to play in the world in upholding human rights and the rule of law and holding people to account on some of the bad things that happen in the world. I would think he would agree it is important that we properly play a leading role in regulating the trade of arms that get into conflict areas and have severe negative effects, most often on women and girls. I am sure he would support that.

Let me also provide him the opportunity to correct the record and admit that what this bill would do is, in fact, keep in place the exact same record-keeping regime of conventional arms that was in place under the Stephen Harper government, of which he was a member, a parliamentary secretary if my memory recalls correctly. I do not know what he is talking about in the creation of some new long-gun registry. It is completely non-factual, and he knows this. He was in a government that allowed for the exact same regime we are talking about through this Arms Trade Treaty.

Foreign Affairs

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to present two petitions. They are both from the Vietnamese community. They call upon the Government of Canada to accept the two bills that are in the House right now. We will be debating one tomorrow, my private member's bill, Bill S-226, the justice for victims of corrupt foreign officials act, the Sergei Magnitsky law, which I am sponsoring on behalf of Senator Raynell Andreychuk. Petitioners are asking the Government of Canada and Parliament to accept the legislation as a way to sanction those individuals who are committing gross human rights violations, as well as those enriching themselves through corruption.

One petition has over 400 signatures on it, and the other has 1,262 signatures. The second one is slightly different in that the petitioners ask that we particularly target Vietnam, which is still suppressing political dissidents. Over the last number of years, over 420 political prisoners have been executed, and that has to come to an end.

Justice

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present e-petition 760, which calls upon Parliament to pass Magnitsky-style legislation. Petitioners mention Bill S-226, which is currently in the House at second reading, as well as Bill C-267, which is my version of the Magnitsky act. Both bills are known as the justice for victims of corrupt foreign officials act, or the Sergei Magnitsky law. As we know, the legislation is getting wide support.

In particular, the 646 petitioners who signed the petition are drawing attention to the corrupt officials in the Communist government of Vietnam and the systematic and brutal human rights violations to political dissidents. Petitioners want us, as parliamentarians, to ensure we pass this important legislation so we can hold to account corrupt foreign officials and those committing atrocities against their own citizens.

Foreign Affairs

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I do want to start by saying I was very pleased last night with our discussion of Bill S-226 and I was pleased to announce that the government will be supporting this bill.

I would like to recognize the work of the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman on this bill, as well as my colleague the member for Etobicoke Centre and the great Irwin Cotler. This is a real example of the House working together in across-party support for Canada working on human rights. I also want to support the work of the committee. I am reviewing the other recommendations very carefully. It is a unanimous report, and it is work very well done.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, evidently our foreign minister and her predecessor hold opposing philosophies. Stéphane Dion was guided by a philosophy of responsible convictions. Dion rejected Magnitsky-style legislation that would make corrupt foreign officials accountable because he was afraid of antagonizing Vladimir Putin.

Yesterday, the foreign minister announced her support for Bill S-226, the Sergei Magnitsky law.

With her support now, would the minister confirm that Mr. Dion's philosophy of responsible convictions and Russian appeasement are no longer guiding Canada's foreign policy?

Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development—Main Estimates, 2016-17

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Chair, I am very aware of the research which the member opposite refers to. I would also like to commend Canadian journalists. They have done a really good job reporting on this. They have captured the attention of a lot of Canadians and have made us aware in ways that many Canadians may not have been previously that our country also has been used as a haven for ill-gotten gains of corrupt foreign officials. That is something which no Canadian can support, and that is the reason Bill S-226 will have not only, I hope, unanimous support in this House, but also support across the country.

In terms of providing the resources to be sure that once we get the legislation in place we are able to act on it, I and the government have every intention of doing so.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Chair, I would like to thank the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman for his hard work in general, but also very specifically on Bill S-226. The member has been working on this for a long time. This is really a special moment when we can come together in support.

I want to join him also in acknowledging the hard work of our colleague Senator Raynell Andreychuk. This is an example of not only cross-party collaboration, but also an example of the Senate and the House working together.

I want to thank the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman for joining me in celebrating the pioneering work of our former colleague Irwin Cotler, who has really been a leading voice on this. I am glad to be able to recognize him for that.

I also want to underscore that I was particularly glad to hear the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie also acknowledge in her remarks that she supported Bill S-226. To me, that augurs well for us getting the support of the whole House.

The member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman is absolutely right. I discussed with him just today the fact that there were some amendments, largely of a technical nature, that we would like to discuss with him. The cross-party support that was demonstrated in the committee's report and in our discussions today can really be carried through with some of those amendments.

We would like to discuss some technical amendments to make this work better. For example, as we know from problems we have had with no-fly lists, it is important that when someone is put on a list, there be some right of appeal. Believe it or not, government officials, even MPs, can get things wrong sometimes. I know that is astonishing. It is important to have a process that allows people to appeal.

There are some other technical amendments, but I do not have time to mention them right now. I would be happy to do so later.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Chair, my answer to the previous question may not have been clear. I want to be very clear that the issue of the behaviour of our mining companies abroad is one I take very seriously as Minister of International Affairs. I referred to my past role as minister of international trade, simply because when I held that portfolio, I was also deeply engaged in the issue.

I want to assure the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie that this is an issue we take very seriously. My colleagues in other portfolios in the department take human rights very seriously as part of their work.

Going back to the very first point, I was very glad to hear the member for Laurier—Sainte Marie speak of her support for Bill S-226. It is good that we now have support from all three parties in the House. I am also aware of the other elements of the committee's report. I am looking at those—