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 .

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

We discussed what adjournment of debate meant. It didn't mean people voted against the actual motion. I think we have witnesses who came here to be present on the topic that we're meant to be discussing on the agenda for today, which is Bill S-8. I would like us to just continue. I think it's inappropriate in the House, as we all know, to mention someone's absence or to suggest that they should be here when one does not know what that individual person has in store that means they cannot be here. That's a really unfair thing to do.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

I will ask that you keep it relevant to Bill S-8, please. We have Senator Harder here with us.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Thank you.

In your speech during the second reading of Bill S-8 in the Senate, you stated that, under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, most individuals sanctioned pursuant to the Special Economic Measures Act may nevertheless have unfettered access to travel to, enter or remain in Canada if they are not otherwise admissible. Why is it the case that individuals sanctioned under SEMA can still travel to, enter or remain in Canada, and how does Bill S-8 specifically address this issue?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Senator Harder, for being here today.

Senator Harder, from what I can see of this, it's just mainly housekeeping and cleaning up to bring things in line, but there's one area that looks to be an oversight. Maybe I'm missing something, so I'll ask you about it.

It's on page 2 of Bill S-8. You are removing paragraphs 35(1)(c) to (e), and paragraph 35(1)(c.1) reads, “having engaged in conduct that would, in the opinion of the Minister, constitute an offence under section 240.1 of the Criminal Code”. Then, if you go to section 240.1 of the Criminal Code, it relates to trafficking in human organs and removal without informed consent.

Why would we take that out? Is it encompassed somewhere else?

[Peter Harder, Senator, Ontario, PSG]

Thank you, Chair. I hope I don't use all of my five minutes, but I appreciate your signals.

This is an “S” bill, which means it originated in the Senate. It is a government bill, and it is not unusual for government bills to be tabled first in the Senate, although it's not a practice that takes place often. This bill was first introduced on May 17 of last year in the Senate and dealt with at second reading on May 19. It went to committee for consideration on June 3 and June 9.

We heard from approximately 19 witnesses, from both officials and other interested groups, and returned the bill with one technical amendment, which coordinated this bill with another bill that was before this chamber at that time, Bill C-21. The final reading took place on June 16, and Bill S-8 was unanimously accepted in our chamber, and hence sent here.

The bill before you is viewed from our chamber as an urgent piece of legislation, a necessary piece of legislation, which allows for sanction-related inadmissibility grounds to be treated in a cohesive and coherent manner. It will strengthen inadmissibility legislation that we already have in place, rendering designated persons who are subject to Government of Canada sanctions inadmissible.

In addition to that, it has further coordinating mechanisms that are important in the view of the government. I believe you had the officials from departments concerned here. I would urge this committee to deal with this bill expeditiously so that this gap in admissibility can be addressed. This is not only urgent with respect to Russian nationals, but it is universal, so it will deal with nationals of other sanctioned regimes, including, obviously, Iran.

I'm open for questions.

Again, the sponsor's role in the Senate is to shepherd the legislation through the Senate and in committee, and to work with colleagues and, ultimately, the government to ensure that the bill's carriage is both appropriately timed and succinctly and appropriately addressed by the Senate of Canada.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity. Usually we have the benefit of the House of Commons reflection before we get a bill. Now you have the opportunity for what we call “sober second thought”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Welcome to meeting number 65 of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room as well as remotely using the Zoom application.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the members and our witness.

Please wait until you have been recognized by name before you speak. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourselves when you are not speaking.

Interpretation for those on Zoom is at the bottom of your screen, and you have a choice of either floor, English or French audio. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

As a reminder, all comments should be made through the chair.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, February 13, 2023, the committee resumes consideration 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.

It is now my great honour to welcome the sponsor of the bill in the Senate, the Honourable Hon. Peter Harder.

We are very grateful to have him here with us.

Senator, you will be provided five—

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to follow up where I left off earlier on the concept of ministerial discretion. Bill S-8 is the framework that links together IRPA, the Citizenship Act and the Emergencies Act, closes loopholes and links sanctions and inadmissibility. It also adds ministerial discretion.

We're trying to be precise and get all of that in. What's the purpose of adding ministerial discretion? What would be an example of when something like that would be in the national interest?

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Please provide the information later on. Thank you.

Still during that debate, there was also discussion of the amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that would be made by clauses 5 and 6 of Bill S‑8, which pertain to sanctions imposed on a country, entity or person

The problem is that the terms “country”, “entity” and “person” are not defined, so much so that some people think that the vagueness of this statement might mean that someone could specifically be refused access to Canada.

I discussed this with the minister but, honestly, I'm not sure I understood his answer. A situation could arise in which refugees, for example, conscientious objectors, people who are opposed to the war and are therefore at risk of being imprisoned in Russia, could be refused access to Canada.

Is that fear founded, in your opinion?

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

I was saying that, during debate on Bill S‑8 at the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade last June, the issue arose of those 2,200 individuals who were sanctioned, but who would not be denied a visa to Canada. At that time, the government representative said 25 individuals who were sanctioned under various regimes were denied a visa.

So I would like to know whether, among those 2,200 individuals, some were granted a visa by the Canadian government.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you.

I would like to build on Mr. Sarai's questions with regard to accidental listings, if I have time. First, though, can you clarify whether any of Canada's partner countries have implemented measures similar to Bill S‑8?

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

I'm not sure if you can answer this question. In June 2022, at the Senate foreign affairs committee, government officials testified that about 2,200 individuals were currently sanctioned but not inadmissible to Canada.

If Bill S‑8 were to pass, do you know how many individuals would be inadmissible based on the bill?

[Stephen Burridge]

If they're listed, then they would be inadmissible by the new provisions under Bill S-8. Should they be listed under any of the previous triggers, they would have been inadmissible had they been listed under the human rights or corruption trigger of either SEMA or the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you.

I believe it was at second reading of Bill S‑8 that Minister Mendicino stated the following:

“[S]anctions issued against groups and non-state entities, such as al Qaeda or ISIL, do not automatically trigger sanctions-related inadmissibility ground.”

Does that mean that individuals who are part of al Qaeda or ISIL—or the Wagner Group, for example, should we sanction them—are not automatically sanctioned? If that's the case, can you explain the process by which they would be sanctioned?

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here.

During the debates in the Senate, Bill S‑8 was amended to prevent conflicts with Bill C‑21, the government's firearms control bill, which is very important to me and that I worked on a great deal.

Could you please confirm to the committee that, following the amendments by the Senate, there are no further conflicts between Bill S-8 and Bill C-21?

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

I'm going to come back to the point I was trying to make earlier. Does Bill S-8 expand the scope—