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 .

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Garnett Genuis]

Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, I'm offering the committee the option. As you know, adjournment is not something that the chair is supposed to do of their own will. Adjournment is dependent on the will of the committee. There was nothing else on the agenda besides Bill S-8, but we certainly have the option to deal with other matters.

I'm putting the question back to the committee. I got the sense that there was a desire to have a vote on the question of adjournment.

[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.

[Scott Nesbitt]

Yes, that's a very fair point. There is no expressed definition in the act, but as with any legislation, a term is going to be interpreted, having regard to its purpose and context.

The purpose and context here is all about implementing multilateral sanctions, primarily United Nations Security Council resolutions. To be clear, there are 15 United Nations Security Council resolutions right now that impose sanctions. Of those 15, it's absolutely crystal clear that 11 of them are sanctions against countries. There's no doubt that those 11 sanctions are imposed against countries and, thus, would trigger paragraph 35(1)(c) as it currently exists, or proposed paragraph 35.1(1)(a) as it would be amended by Bill S-8.

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

Thank you.

We took a look at the very same issue. We took a look at potentially.... One of the criticisms we heard was defining the word “entity”. I think that's the other thing that we're trying to get at. We took a look at adding it to the IRPA at the beginning and then allowing the clause in this section, “entity does not include a foreign state” as referring only to section 35.

Can you comment on whether that's the better route to go: to define “entity” within the IRPA as it is defined in SEMA? I think that is what we're trying to get to. We're all on the same page, I think. We're just trying to figure out how we get there.

Then we'd be excluding “entity”, specifically within section 35, as defined in Bill S-8.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Many witnesses asked for clarification of certain terms, including "countries" and "entities," and in some cases even for the removal of the word "country." The latter term may be too broad a reference, whereas "foreign state" is used in legislation related to sanctions, such as the Special Economic Measures Act and the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, or Sergei Magnitsky Act. The term "foreign state" is clearly defined in them.

I don't think anyone here questions the wording of the Sergei Magnitsky Act. I even often hear members of all parties using it as an example. If we want to be serious, I think we could build on what is already defined in some legislation internationally, and even domestically.

As far as we know, the word "entity" is also not defined in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, whereas it is, as I've indicated, in various statutes dealing with sanctions. We are simply adding more clarification without changing the essence of Bill S‑8.

My colleague Mr. Oliphant just gave a demonstration in his argument, but I would be curious to know if he is able to explain the difference between "country" and "foreign state." Perhaps that would help us understand the Liberal point of view a bit. Right now, I'm convinced that our proposal will really define things better and only improve the bill, and, more importantly, make it more precise.

In my opinion, the essence of the bill is not affected at all by these amendments. I understand that we are still debating the NDP amendment, but I am convinced that the Bloc Québécois amendment is more precise.

As I said with all due respect to Ms. McPherson, this is not a disavowal at all, but I think it is a good idea to clarify things because the witnesses came to the Committee and explained that we needed to do this. It is our role as parliamentarians to listen to what is being said when the experts speak to us and to act accordingly when it comes time to vote on amendments and subamendments.

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

I would agree with you. It's been ruled by the chair as admissible, which I don't think is correct. However, I won't challenge the chair on that. Your point is extremely important, because on this side, we won't be supporting either the NDP's amendment on this section or the Bloc's. We actually think it does change the bill and is contrary to the nature of the bill, which was meant to expand the government's ability, Canada's ability, to keep the bad people out. That's exactly what we're trying to do.

Bill S-8, if amended, would delete the reference to “country” in the proposed new paragraph and would add the clarification that an entity does not include a foreign state. The proposed amendment would unduly limit the scope of inadmissibility provisions. It would mean that, contrary to the provision that has been in place for the last 20 years, foreign nationals would not be inadmissible if they were subject to a travel ban, included as part of sanctions imposed against a country. This would put Canada in breach of its obligations to implement such sanctions, including travel restrictions imposed by the United Nations.

We have strong legal concerns, which are coming from two departments, as well as a parliamentary concern coming from the legislative clerk that this changes the nature of the bill, so we would be voting against this amendment. I believe if it were to fail, it would probably negate the Bloc one as well—although I have never been sure of that rule.

However, we want to keep Canada as safe as possible. We want to limit admissibility when people have been sanctioned, and I think this amendment is contrary to this.

[Marie-Hélène Sauvé, Legislative Clerk]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In analyzing this amendment, it seemed to us that the objective of Bill S‑8 was to expand the scope of inadmissibility based on sanctions to not just a country but also an entity or a person. This amendment seeks to reduce the scope of inadmissibility, so in our view, it went against the principle of the bill.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

NDP‑1 is an attempt to define “entity” within the bill. We heard from a number of different experts that they were concerned about it. Bill S‑8 proposes to establish a distinct ground of inadmissibility based on sanctions, namely sanctions imposed on a “country, entity or person”.

As we heard from the Canadian Bar Association, the Refugee Centre and other witnesses, they recommend removing the reference to “country” because it is too far-reaching and the implications on others would be too risky, and they would limit the sanctions to an entity or person. They also recommended that “entity” be clearly defined to exclude a country or foreign state.

We also want to ensure that the sanctions in this bill are defined as many witnesses asked. The main concern was that “sanctions” should not include economic measures imposed on a foreign state. We believe that the removal of “country” from proposed section 35.1, which is the subject of this amendment, would accomplish that. That's exactly why we're moving this particular amendment.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Garnett Genuis]

Ms. McPherson, we are debating clause 6. This is Bill S‑8, and we're debating clause 6. This isn't question period. I'm the chair of the committee—

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

I have a question for Mr. Oliphant.

With the proposed deletion in G-1 of paragraph (c), which only refers to permanent residents, is it the intention then to leave—I'm getting confused now—foreign nationals...? Is the intention to allow permanent residents who may have received an illegal organ transplant not to be subject to the inadmissibility under Bill S-8?

[Scott Nesbitt]

As for the (c.1) provision, it remains unchanged from as enacted in Bill S-223, so I believe it does apply to permanent residents and foreign nationals, but the Bill S-8 inadmissibilities on sanctions only apply to foreign nationals.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I noted during our discussion on the bill, there is a coordinating amendment that we feel would be required because of the previous passing of another Senate bill that affects the same area of this bill.

I would move that Bill S-8, in clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 33 and 34 on page 2 with the following:

5 (1) Paragraph 35(1)(c) of the Act is repealed.

(1.1) Subsection 35(1) of the Act is amended by adding “or” at the end of paragraph (b) and by repealing paragraphs (d) and (e).

That is the amendment. It is meant to be a technical coordinating amendment, on the advice of legislative counsel.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Garnett Genuis]

Thank you for expressing that, Ms. McPherson. We have an agenda for this meeting, which is clause-by-clause of Bill S-8.

I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there is an amendment to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill or in the package each member received from the clerk.

There is an additional amendment from our friends in the Bloc this morning, so just take note of that. That will be considered, as well, in due course.

Members should note that the amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee. Each amendment has been given an alphanumeric number in the top right corner to indicate which party submitted it. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once an amendment is moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment to an amendment is moved, it is voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title and on the bill itself. Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. That report contains only the text of any adopted amendments, as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

Those are the clause-by-clause rules.

I will now proceed to call clause 1.

(Clause 1 agreed to)

(Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 5)

We're now on clause 5, for which I believe there is an amendment.

We'll start with G-1.

Mr. Oliphant, go ahead, please.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Garnett Genuis]

We're doing clause-by-clause on Bill S-8 right now, so unless it's a point of order, I'll be proceeding.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Garnett Genuis]

Good morning, colleagues. It's 11 o'clock.

Welcome to meeting number 66 of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

I intend to dispense with the usual reading of the hybrid rules.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, February 13, 2023, the committee is resuming consideration of Bill S-8.

I'm very pleased to welcome officials from various departments. They are going to be supporting our consideration at the clause-by-clause stage. If members are interested, I can review the rules around clause-by-clause, but I'm also happy to dispense with those, given that we've dealt with clause-by-clause fairly recently.

Is there any member who wishes us to review the clause-by-clause rules?