Bill S-8 (Historical)

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

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am so pleased to rise today to speak to Bill S-8, which seeks to make amendments to consequential acts for the purpose of expanding the Minister of Public Safety's ability to declare people inadmissible to Canada, or to deport people from Canada from groups or countries that have been sanctioned.

I want to say that this is the kind of legislation that I think Canadians are increasingly wanting to see in this country. They want to see the government take strong actions against human rights violators and war criminals, as we are seeing with the illegal war in Ukraine started by the President of Russia. We want to see the government take strong action to hold these criminals accountable. I think, absolutely, that the spirit of the bill is something I would be pleased to support.

However, what I do find somewhat disturbing is that we can write the best legislation that we can in the House, but that the best legislation is nothing unless there is the enforcement behind it to ensure that it is achieving the outcomes it is intended to achieve. I think of the illegal foreign police stations that are currently operating in this country. Surely it is illegal for foreign governments to run police stations in our country for the purpose of coercing citizens, permanent residents or guests in our country. We need to ensure that the enforcement is taking place, in those cases and in the cases under this legislation, to protect Canadians' lives, to protect Canadians and permanent residents from intimidation, and also to send a strong message of Canadian values.

We have seen many reports on this. I think there are a lot of people who have been concerned over the years that Canada is becoming, or has become, somewhat of a haven for foreign criminals or foreign entities that are sanctioned to hide their money here or to come and live here to avoid the consequences of their actions at home. What we want to see is not only strong legislation that sends a message, but also strong enforcement by the government.

With that, I want to say that it is a Friday afternoon. As we go into the weekend, it will be Father's Day. I just want to wish a happy Father's Day to all Canadians and to all members of the House who are fathers. Our children are a blessing. Our thoughts are with those of us who may have lost a parent in the past year; that leaves a huge hole in people's lives. Let us always appreciate the people in our lives, particularly this weekend when we think of the fathers in all our lives.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated working with the member at the public safety committee.

I am a little confused by the Conservatives' position. Is the Conservatives' position that this bill needs to be adopted, or is the Conservatives' position that they would like to continue stalling on this bill? I would like some clarification from my hon. colleague.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I too have enjoyed my time at the public safety committee with the member.

What one member calls “stalling” is what I call “democracy”, because when the government is doing something that is so offside with what Canadians want, it is the duty of all parliamentarians to use whatever means necessary to ensure either that the legislation is defeated or that it is amended in such way as to remove the offending parts of that legislation. We saw that very clearly with the debate on Bill C-21 and how the strong opposition from Conservative members of Parliament did lead to some significant changes to the legislation by the government. That is democracy in action. What one member calls “stalling”, I would call “democracy in action”.

On this bill in particular, what we support is the spirit of the bill. What I want to make sure is that the government members actually enforce the provisions they are trying to give themselves the power on.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, therein is the confusion. The Conservatives have been stalling on this. Now they are saying they want the government to actually put the provisions into effect. The problem is, of course, that as long as the bill is stalled, the provisions cannot come into effect. It is the same contradiction we saw with Conservatives yesterday, as 66% of the Conservative caucus used the hybrid voting provisions to vote against hybrid Parliament. We are not talking about one or two who did what is very clear that—

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

I have to give the hon. member for Sturgeon River—Parkland an opportunity to answer.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, we are going to look at all legislation—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, it seems there is a bit of a ruckus in the House.

As I said, I wish all members a very happy Father's Day. What we do here is about standing up for our constituents and standing up for Canadians. I will make no apology for doing what is necessary to stand up for the values and interests of the people who sent me here.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, since we heard that complete non sequitur from the previous intervenor to the member for Sturgeon River—Parkland, I would give him the opportunity to also reflect upon how, in his previous answer, he did offer that Conservatives have used opportunities, as we have in this past session, to improve legislation and stand up for democracy.

We have seen the exact opposite from NDP members, who have sold out their constituents, sold out their voters and thrown their lot in with a government that has been found to be corrupt time and time again, especially by independent officers of Parliament who have seen the Prime Minister found guilty of breaking ethics laws.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is disappointing. Time and time again, we have seen the NDP sell out its core values on a number of pieces of legislation in order to keep this coalition government going.

I can completely understand why the NDP does not want to face the voters at this time, but the fact is that eventually it is going to be held accountable and the people are going to have to decide whether or not this coalition that the NDP has formed with the Liberal government is something that they will support.

In my constituency, we have been getting calls because people cannot get through to the office of the NDP member for Edmonton Griesbach. The line has been down for over a month now, and they wanted to talk to him about Bill C-21 and about how upset they were about it. They actually had to come to my office to try to get any answers.

Clearly, what we need is a member in Edmonton Griesbach who is going to stand up for their constituents. I know my great friend Kerry Diotte would be a great person for that job.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will just put aside the character assignation of the very hard-working member for Edmonton Griesbach, one of the best members in the House of Commons, and simply remark that there is not a single Conservative MLA in the entire metropolitan area of Edmonton now, as—

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

I will have to ask the hon. member for Sturgeon River—Parkland to give a very brief answer.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, as an MP who does represent the metropolitan area of Edmonton, I do not have a single NDP MLA in my constituency, so I would say that the member is wrong. We have very strong representation for our region in the legislature, and I look forward to working with Minister Turton; Minister Nally; the whip, Shane Getson; and Andrew Boitchenko to stand up and fulfill the mandate that the Albertan people gave to the UCP government.

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

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.