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 .

Justice and Human Rights

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join this debate, but before going any further, I want to mention that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from the Standing Committee on Finance, the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley.

As this motion points out, recent events have brought renewed focus on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or the IRGC. Canada strongly condemns the blatant disregard for human rights and human life shown by the IRGC in recent acts against Iranians. We continue to listen to and join our voices with those who are demanding better in Iran.

Here in Canada, we are continuing to take decisive action against this regime. On November 14, 2022, the Government of Canada announced the designation of Iran as a regime that has engaged in terrorism and systemic and gross human rights violations under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

As a result, senior officials of the regime are now permanently inadmissible to Canada. This includes tens of thousands of Iranians, such as the head of state, senior IRGC members, intelligence operatives, senior government officials, diplomats and judges. The government also announced significantly expanded sanctions against those responsible for the Iranian regime's egregious human rights violations.

Those new sanctions would build on our existing sanctions. All told, these measures amount to the most robust and comprehensive set of sanctions in the world against Iran and the IRGC.

I would also like to point out that the Government of Canada announced its intention to pursue legislation intended to ensure that no sanctioned individual connected to the IRGC can enter Canada.

Thanks to the passage of Bill S-8, the law now aligns the IRPA with the Special Economic Measures Act to ensure that all foreign nationals subject to sanctions under SEMA will also be inadmissible to Canada. This designation means thousands of members of the regime, including many members of the IRGC, intelligence operatives, government officials and judges, among others, are now inadmissible in Canada.

The government also announced it would invest $76 million to strengthen Canada's capacity to implement sanctions and to ensure we can move more quickly to freeze and seize sanctioned individuals' assets. This includes a dedicated bureau at Global Affairs Canada. It also includes additional support to the RCMP to investigate and identify assets and gather evidence, building on authorities announced in budget 2022. It is a suite of measures that will help hold the Iranian regime to account for its egregious actions, and we are going to continue to pursue all the tools at our disposal.

I will highlight that we already have a strong foundation. That is a result of our previous actions, which were already some of the strongest in the world. They include designating the state of Iran as a state supporter of terrorism under Canada's State Immunity Act, and this allows civil actions to be taken against it under the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act.

We also announced additional sanctions against senior Iranian officials and prominent entities who directly implement repressive measures, violate human rights and spread the Iranian regime's propaganda. These sanctions effectively froze any assets these individuals may hold in Canada.

As I note, Canada continues to have in place a series of strong measures to hold both Iran and the IRGC accountable. In November 2022, the then minister of public safety implemented the designation of the Iranian regime, pursuant to paragraph 35(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. This renders all senior officials in the service of the Iranian regime inadmissible to Canada from November 15, 2019, onward. This designation also acts as a prevention tool, as it ensures that prescribed senior officials will not be granted a Canadian visa in the first place. The fact that the regime has been designated also serves to discourage Iranian senior officials from attempting to travel to Canada.

Under this designation, as of November 20, 2023, approximately 17,800 visa applications had been reviewed for potential inadmissibility, and 78 individuals had been denied access to Canada. Dozens of Iranian regime officials have been denied entry to Canada, and Canada has deported several former Iranian officials, including Majid Iranmanesh, who is the first to face deportation under sanctions adopted in November 2022.

Further, based on referrals from IRCC and tips from the public, 141 cases are now being investigated by the CBSA and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. So far, 38 investigations were closed by the CBSA for individuals who were either out of the country or deemed not inadmissible to Canada.

In June 2019, Canada added three new Iran-backed groups to the terrorist list under the Criminal Code, including the Fatemiyoun Division, known to recruit soldiers from Afghanistan. Iran has provided these groups with substantial resources, including training and weapons to carry out terrorist acts that advance its goals in the region. Canada continues to list the IRGC Quds Force and a number of terrorist entities that have benefited from the force's patronage, including arms, funding and paramilitary training, and that help advance Iran's interests and foreign policy. These include Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Taliban.

As the motion before us today suggests, the listing regime is one important tool for countering terrorism in Canada and globally and is part of the government's commitment to keeping Canadians safe. The listing process is ongoing and vigorous, but it is of course just one of our many tools. We need to stay adaptable and change with the times. Global instability and the rapid changes we are seeing demonstrate, again and again, how we need to work every day to retain the democratic values we cherish.

Our collective efforts to counter terrorism reflect the fact that we must think and co-operate globally. For Canada, for example, one of the main terrorist threats stems from violent extremists inspired by terrorist groups. We must continue to take seriously the threat of those espousing extremist views who may be travelling or returning to our countries. Canada has a robust approach in place to address this issue as well. In fact, it is a Criminal Code offence for any Canadian citizen or permanent resident to travel abroad to support or engage in a terrorist activity or the activities of a terrorist group. Law enforcement conducts criminal investigations to the fullest extent they are able, with a view to supporting criminal charges and prosecutions of Canadian extremist travellers and returnees.

When charges cannot be laid, a number of other tools are considered, including surveillance and monitoring; terrorism peace bonds; no-fly listings; refusals, cancellations or revocations of passports; and other threat reduction measures. Canadians who involve themselves in terrorism and violent extremism can expect to be investigated, arrested, charged and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. That is the government's prime objective and priority.

As with many other security issues, we continue our multilateral partnerships to improve coordination, information flow and capacity building. Our principles in countering terrorism affirm Canada's democratic values. They provide a clear articulation of how Canada conducts its work. Colleagues can be assured that Canada is looking at all possible options to constrain the activities of Iran that threaten national security.

From an operational perspective, the RCMP has investigated numerous areas in relation to Iran pertaining to its federally mandated activities. These include national security, transnational organized crime, money laundering, sanctions violations, threats of harm to individuals in Canada or elsewhere, instances of transnational repression and other national security offences.

This is a time of tension and uncertainty, but Canadians can rest assured their government is working for them on all fronts. As my colleagues will point to, we are actively getting funding to communities through programs like the security infrastructure program, funding mechanisms like the community resilience fund and anti-hate initiatives across the government.

I am sure they will also highlight that the Minister of Public Safety is committed to continuing to engage communities directly. He met with federal, provincial and territorial leaders to discuss this urgent matter. He has met with universities to discuss needs on campus as well. He met recently with the cross-cultural round table on security, or CCRS. The CCRS an important mechanism for the minister to hear directly from diverse community members on the topics concerning their safety. Tensions in the Middle East, along with their impacts on our communities, were a key topic of discussion.

In sum, there is a remarkable amount of work being done across government to counter acts and words of hate and violence, and we need to continue to do more.

(Bill C-9. On the Order: Government Orders)

June 21, 2023—Third reading of Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Judges Act.

(Motion respecting Senate amendments agreed to)

(Bill S-8: On the Order: Government Orders)

June 21, 2023—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.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

(Bill C-40: On the Order: Government Orders)

June 21, 2023—Second reading of Bill C-40, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, to make consequential amendments to other Acts and to repeal a regulation (miscarriage of justice reviews).

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

(Bill C-53: On the Order: Government Orders)

June 21, 2023—Second reading of Bill C-53, An Act respecting the recognition of certain Métis governments in Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan, to give effect to treaties with those governments and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I move that notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House:

(a) on the last allotted day in the supply period ending June 23, 2023, the proceedings on the opposition day motion shall conclude no later than 10:30 p.m., the House shall then proceed to the putting of the question on the motion and then, if required, the taking of any division or divisions necessary to dispose of the motion, and the Speaker shall then put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of the motions to concur in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024, and to the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024, and for the passage at all stages of any bill based on the said estimates;

(b) notices of opposed items in relation to the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024, and to the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024, listed on the Notice Paper be deemed withdrawn;

(c) the recorded divisions on government legislation currently deferred to the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions today be deemed further deferred to the conclusion of all proceedings in relation to the estimates tonight;

(d) the motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons related to the appointment of Harriet Solloway as Public Sector Integrity Commissioner pursuant to Standing Order 111.1(2) be deemed moved, a recorded vote be deemed requested and deferred after the recorded division on the motion for third reading of Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts;

(e) in relation to Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Judges Act, the amendment to the motion respecting Senate amendments made to the bill be deemed withdrawn and the motion respecting Senate amendments made to the bill, standing on the Notice Paper, be deemed adopted;

(f) 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 deemed read a third time and passed;

(g) Bill C-40, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, to make consequential amendments to other Acts and to repeal a regulation (miscarriage of justice reviews), be deemed read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights;

(h) Ways and Means Motion No. 18, notice of which was tabled on June 16, 2023, be deemed concurred in, a bill based thereon standing on the Order Paper in the name of the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, entitled “An Act respecting the recognition of certain Métis governments in Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan, to give effect to treaties with those governments and to make consequential amendments to other Acts”, be deemed to have been introduced and read a first time, deemed read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs; and

(i) the written questions dated June 20, 2023, standing on the Notice Paper, be deemed to have been transferred to the Order Paper on Wednesday, June 21, 2023, for the purposes of Standing Order 39.

The House resumed from June 16 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, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of Motion No. 1.

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.

The House resumed from June 13 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, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of Motion No. 1.

Bill S-8—Time Allocation Motion

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, though my colleague may be a new member, I can say she provides immense value to the debates that take place in this chamber, and I thank her for her presence here and the representation of her community. The member has learned a lesson, though she may be in her first term, far more quickly than I did when I was in my first term.

When I was first elected, I wanted to chase every car, make every argument and take part in every single debate. What I came to understand was that the greatest currency we have as parliamentarians is the time during which we can put forward the arguments that support our communities. Every minute that we spend on one issue is a minute we do not spend on another.

When we are dealing with an issue such as in Bill S-8, something a simple as rendering inadmissible some of the worst criminals who are responsible, in this case, for the latest invasion into Ukraine by Russia, and when we are dealing with the people who are responsible for the persecution of innocent people in Iran, following the death of Mahsa Amini, because they had the audacity to protest this egregious behaviour by their government, I think we can agree that we have had the debate we needed to have and that now we have the ability to move on to deal with other pressing issues, such as those the member referenced in her question. I look forward to hearing her perspective on those important debates as soon as we are able to wrap up this measure as quickly as possible.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I would like to thank the member for his informed responses to all of our questions.

I still feel quite new as an MP, with this being my first term, so sometimes it feels like it takes me a while to learn some of these procedures, and time allocation is something that I am still getting myself familiar with. When I think about the last two years that we have sat here, with all the filibustering that we have seen and all the opportunities when we could have had more informed debates on important issues like addressing indigenous housing, indigenous poverty and the justice system that is very unfair to indigenous people, I wonder if the minister can explain, especially with Bill S-8, why time allocation is so important and what led up to this debate today.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to share my opinion on the gag orders, because judging by what the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader and the minister are saying, one would have to wonder whether gag orders are not the best thing since sliced bread. I consider gag orders to be a technique used to systematically muzzle the elected members of the House, which is unacceptable.

I believe that when the government invokes closure, it is because the government House leader has mismanaged the time spent on House business. All parties support Bill S‑8. We are now at third reading, the committee did a good job, everything is going well, and I do not think that there were many members who wanted to speak at this stage.

I will give an example. Last night, until midnight, we discussed Bill C‑9. We have discussed this several times before, even before the last election. Why has the government House leader not been able to say that this is important, that it enjoys a fairly broad consensus and that it will be implemented quickly? Instead, it takes years to be adopted and implemented.

I have two other examples. Closure was also invoked for Bill C‑47 , the budget implementation bill. It is hundreds of pages long and all the organizations that wanted to delve into it would have needed time to do so. Imposing closure on such a bill limits the amount of time available to go through it and the ability to correct the flaws in committee.

One last and extreme example dates back to the pandemic, when the government was not taking action. At one point, it came up with a bill that was to go through all stages immediately. We asked for a few weeks to study it. We wanted it to be introduced so that people could go through it and improve it. However, the government did not want to do that and said that everything had to be passed as soon as possible, without any study or review. Well, it then had to present other bills to fix the first one. That is an unacceptable and absolutely amateurish way of doing things.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy questions from the hon. member. I find them to be thoughtful, even though we often find ourselves in disagreement. I think to have respectful engagement on issues that matter is very important.

With respect, there are a number of different kinds of sanctions that may be most appropriate for different kinds of scenarios. In fact, before the changes to Bill S-8, there are certain kinds, including for human rights abuses, that could be launched more through our sanctions regime. We also had the opportunity to sanction individuals for significant acts of corruption, both of which could have rendered a person inadmissible. Going forward, we will be able to render people inadmissible as well for violations that cause interruptions to global peace and security. For what it is worth, there is another expansion that will ensure that we are not just dealing with acts committed by countries but also substate actors and terror organizations.

I think, going forward, when the facts justify it, it may be most appropriate to use sanctions for human rights abuses, but in the present instance we have seen a significant increase, as a result, in particular, of Russia's latest invasion into Ukraine, of bad actors who I think are complicit in those kinds of actions that have interrupted global peace and security. Whether it is for gross and systematic human rights violations, whether it is for significant acts of corruption or whether it is for this new power that will be rendering people inadmissible based on their erosion of international peace and security, I think all of those groups deserve to be sanctioned with inadmissibility, not just the pre-existing consequences that were available under the particular piece of legislation that is at issue in this particular debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, it has been said many times that there are two Bloc parties in the House of Commons. There is the Bloc Québécois and the “block everything” party. The “block everything” party, the Conservatives, have blocked everything from dental care to the grocery rebate to affordable housing. Yesterday, we will remember, they blocked the hybrid Parliament, except that two-thirds of Conservatives used the hybrid provisions to vote against the hybrid Parliament. We just cannot make this stuff up. Now they are blocking Bill S-8.

My question to my hon. colleague is simply this. Why is the “block everything” party blocking everything that would actually help their constituents, including dental care, which would help about 10,000 people in each and every Conservative riding?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for my hon. colleague and had the opportunity to spend my first few years as a member of Parliament on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities with him. Unfortunately, in this particular instance I have a different perspective.

The use of time allocation, I remind him, was a routine part of proceedings before we formed government in 2015. There are many hundreds of examples when former House leader Peter Van Loan used the exact same tool to put forward significant omnibus legislation when the opposition wanted to have a say.

The reality is that, as a result of our trying to get a number of things done as we approach the summer session and as a result of certain tactics being deployed by His Majesty's loyal opposition, we found ourselves in a scenario where we were being threatened with filibusters that would potentially continue through to the end of the session and that were going to delay important things from getting done.

This is a particular piece of legislation that has been well litigated in this chamber and the other, and we now have an opportunity to move forward on an issue for which I expect there is largely agreement between multiple parties. This will enable us to move over to other priorities I know people in parts of Canada care deeply about, whether it is protecting the environment, advancing health care reforms or including investments that will make life more affordable.

We need to be able to have these debates and complete legislation in a timely way, and I am going to be pleased to see Bill S-8 form part of Canadian law hopefully in the very near future.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Minister of Seniors]

moved:

That in relation to 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, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and five hours shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said bill; and

That, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration at report stage and the five hours provided for the consideration at third reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

Bill S-8—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and third reading stage 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.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the respective stages of the said bill.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to respond on behalf of the government.

This afternoon we will continue debate on Government Business No. 26, concerning amendments to the Standing Orders. When debate concludes later this evening, we will consider Bill C-35, respecting early learning and child care, followed by Senate amendments to Bill C-9, concerning the Judges Act.

Tomorrow we will consider Bill C-42, respecting the Canada Business Corporations Act, at report stage and third reading, and Bill S-8, respecting sanctions.

The priorities for next week shall include Bill S-8, on sanctions; Senate amendments to Bill C-18, respecting online news; Bill C-40, concerning the miscarriage of justice review commission act, also known as David and Joyce Milgaard's Law; and Bill C-33, which strengthens the port system and railway safety.

Thursday shall be an allotted day.

Finally, I request that the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the next sitting be 12 midnight, pursuant to order made Tuesday, November 15, 2022.

Immigration and Refugee Act

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Battle River—Crowfoot for that excellent summary of Bill S-8 and what it means to Canada, how it falls short and how the government falls short in meeting the challenges of the geopolitical landscape as it is playing out around the world. As the member mentioned, this is simply some amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The bill addresses the issue of sanctions. It would make sure that individuals who have been sanctioned and should not be admissible to Canada do not actually make it into Canada.

The bill is most specifically a response to what happened in Ukraine. The Russian invasion of Ukraine was illegal and immoral. It has devastated a country that was simply looking for peace. As someone who has family roots that are at least in part vested in Ukraine, I, like so many Canadians, was exceedingly angry at what we saw Vladimir Putin do to a country that was struggling to develop the prosperity and security it deserves. Now, with the actions that Russia has taken in Ukraine, the whole global geopolitical and geosecurity environment has been turned on its head. The bill before us purports to tighten Canada's sanctions regime to ensure that no one implicated in illegal foreign acts of aggression and illegal foreign acts of war could enter Canada.

However, right off the bat, I have two comments to make. First, there is no indication right now that foreigners who are inadmissible to Canada are getting into Canada. Therefore, it appears that our current sanctions regime is working. I do understand efforts to be proactive and plug gaps that might exist. That is the first point that I will make. There is no indication that foreigners who are inadmissible to Canada are getting into Canada.

Second, it is troubling that this bill emanates not from the House, but from the Senate, which, as members know, is unelected. One would expect that the Liberal government, if it considered our national security and global security to be that important, would table that bill here in the House first and then let it go to the other place for further, sober second thought.

Since the bill intends to strengthen our ability to prevent persons who have been sanctioned from actually entering Canada, it does so first by establishing a distinct ground of inadmissibility based on those very sanctions. That is the first part of it. The second part of the bill proposes to expand the scope of inadmissibility to include not only sanctions that are imposed on a foreign country, but also sanctions that are imposed on a foreign entity or organization, or a foreign person, because we want to capture everybody who would be implicated in foreign acts of aggression.

Third, the bill would expand the scope of inadmissibility based on sanctions that are made in section 4 of SEMA, or the Special Economic Measures Act. Finally, the bill would amend the regulations to provide that the Minister of Public Safety would have the authority to issue a removal order on grounds of inadmissibility based on those very sanctions under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

That may all sound very complicated, but the bottom line is this: All this bill does is purport to plug existing gaps. I would suggest to the government, rather than being in reactive mode, why is it not proactive in addressing the challenges that Canada faces on the security front?

For example, why is the government not actively addressing the issue of foreign interference in our elections? Why is it not actively addressing the issue of intellectual property theft by the regime in Beijing? Why is it not addressing those individuals who were implicated in the acts of terrorism and intolerance in the country of Iran, who have now found a safe haven in our country and are seen walking the streets of our cities such as Toronto? Why will it not be proactive in addressing geopolitical security issues, rather than always responding in a reactive way and missing the boat?

We will be supporting this legislation, but it does not reflect a thoughtful, proactive approach to the very real challenges that face Canada today.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to enter into debate in this place to touch on some of the very serious issues that are affecting, in this case, not just my constituents and not just Canadians from coast to coast to coast; the bill truly speaks to Canada's role in the world.

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, speaks to a gap that has been highlighted, and I would like to explore a bit as to why this bill is being brought forward now.

The bill speaks to a gap that exists. There are examples in Canada of those who have been complicit in, profited from or may have even been involved in some of the most heinous crimes globally, whether during a revolution or during regime changes. These people have not specifically been sanctioned in many cases, but were a part of a regime that participated in massive human rights violations. Specifically, I will get to some of those examples as they apply to Iran.

We see that there is a gap. When somebody comes to this country and applies for permanent resident status or maybe even citizenship, their application will be judged based on the merits of that application, when it is quite possible that this individual may have been complicit, as I mentioned, in very serious and heinous crimes.

What the legislation purports to do, and I will get into some of the challenges, is take a baby step in the right direction, although there seems to be as much ambiguity being added to the process as there is an attempt to address some of the challenges that exist. The bill would help to ensure that this cannot happen.

I think it bears mentioning that the changes in this bill are long overdue. Given some of the loopholes that have allowed these perpetrators of human rights violations to come to Canada and the fact that these gaps may exist, the changes are long overdue.

Why did it take eight years for that to take place? As we know, a global security challenge has shaken the very foundations of what we all came to take for granted. Specifically, as I am sure members know, that is the conflict, the Russian aggression, against the state of Ukraine. All of a sudden, there it was, although certainly there have been many conflicts, including many that have risen to the point where sanctions have had to be applied.

We see how this conflict brought in a whole barrage of sanctions against Russians and those who are sympathetic to, or involved in, the activities of a country that is devastating a state and impacting the people of Ukraine. The fact is that there would be this loophole that actors who may be complicit in abuses can profit from. The current law does not specifically mention that, and that is a key point here. That it is not specifically mentioned would grant someone the possibility of coming to Canada to be given safe haven.

As we heard in the expert testimony before the Senate committee and as we heard from stakeholders on this subject, there is some ambiguity about what exactly the bill would allow the government to do versus what the bill is being said to do. I would just highlight that it was long overdue to see these loopholes fixed, but in typical fashion, the government is proposing a bill, in this case going through the Senate, that is admirable in its intentions. The government gets an “A” for the announcement, but when it comes to the delivery and the implications of what is being proposed, there remain many outstanding questions.

I think that is a troubling trend that we have seen across a host of issues. The government, over the last eight years, has been really good at the politics of legislation; however, it fails in the actual hard work of governing, and that is truly what is key when it comes to so many things in our country. It takes hard work. It is not just about announcements. It is easy to stand in front of a podium and make an announcement; it is a whole lot harder to actually get down and get to work.

As a farmer, I know that if someone simply thought about and talked about the planting season, that person certainly will not be successful. Work is required to put the seed in the ground and to make sure that it can come to the point of harvest in the fall and everything associated with that.

It is the same thing with vineyards. There is a burgeoning wine sector in the Peterborough area. It is very exciting, and my colleague and I have had some chats about it with, I think, the chair of the wine caucus as well. I mention that as well.

I will take this opportunity, since my colleague is here talking about one of his passions, to say that it was a pleasure for me to see Bill C-281 pass just this past week, I believe with unanimous support, and how important it is that parliamentary oversight was given to the Magnitsky sanctions regime here in Canada, that Parliament could trigger that, and that there would have to be a mechanism for reporting to this place to ensure accountability to our democratic infrastructure.

The reason I believe this is important, and let me highlight a few examples of why this is important, is that we have seen an increasing disconnect between the executive government in our nation and Parliament. That is incredibly concerning for a whole host of reasons, but it very directly applies to what we are talking about here today.

Bill C-281, in one of its four parts, specifically addresses making sure that accountability comes back to the people's House here in the House of Commons and that there is that reporting mechanism.

Further, we see a disconnect, and I will not get into the myriad examples outside of this issue, in the Americanization of the separation between the executive and legislative branches of Parliament. That is very concerning. That is not how our system is meant to operate.

Our Prime Minister sits in the House of Commons and our cabinet ministers are members of the House of Commons, and it is absolutely key that there be that close connection between the executive government and the legislative branch of our government. When there is a separation, we see that many of the issues that Canadians are facing, and the scandals and the erosion of trust in our institutions and whatnot, can be pointed back to the fact that we have a government that refuses to acknowledge the will that is expressed by the people in the House of Commons. That can not be highlighted any more clearly than when it comes to the issue of the IRGC.

What is unique about Westminster democracy is that it is Parliament that is the chief arbiter of the nation. This principle of Parliamentary supremacy is absolutely key to how we do business in this country, and yet we have, increasingly, the Liberals taking things for granted. They may have confidence on financial measures and whatnot, but when it comes to actually addressing issues, of course, we see that Liberals reject the will of Parliament and by nature the will of the people when it comes to calling a public inquiry into foreign election interference.

We also saw that happen, very troublingly, when it came to the issue of the IRGC. It was this House that voted in favour of listing the IRGC as a terrorist entity. This House voted in favour of that listing multiple times. It is dumbfounding, quite frankly, that the government would refuse to take that action when the people of this country, by nature of this institution of the House of Commons, the keystone of democratic involvement in our country, have said that this should be the case.

The Liberals have tried to explain that away, but it is that disconnect that exists. It may be inconvenient to the political whims of the government on a whole host of issues but we need to get back to the roots of why this place exists.

I have highlighted some of the challenges, but let me finish by highlighting one challenge that I think merits significant attention, and that is the increasingly unstable circumstance of the situation in Asia, with China and some of the gestures that are being made toward Taiwan, and the issues with Russia's invasion of Ukraine. There are a whole host of other issues.

It behooves all of us to make sure that we get this right to ensure that Canada cannot be a place where international war criminals or those who have profited from war crimes and the worst possible actions can come for safe haven.

I support this bill. It takes a small step in the right direction, although there is certainly much more work that needs to be done.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, today, we are debating Bill S-8, which would amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act as well as regulations made under the act. It would also make changes to the Citizenship Act and the Emergencies Act.

Everyone here knows that these are important policy areas affecting our national security, our national interests and our immigration system, and that is what we have to carefully consider.

It is helpful to start out any discussion in this place, especially on these topics, by recalling what an amazing privilege it is to be Canadian. That is the reason people from all around the world want to come and start a new life in Canada. It is a blessing to live in a country where we can enjoy freedom, opportunity, security and prosperity.

None of those things can ever be taken for granted and if we are fortunate enough to have all of that here, despite the government's attempts to undermine them, we also have a responsibility to maintain it for ourselves and our fellow citizens. We need to ensure that Canada is always in the best position to preserve our way of life in the present and for the future. That is what we must get right.

We are dealing with a bill on an important subject, which the government decided to introduce in the other place. It already went through a first round of legislative process before it came to us. This means that instead of the usual process, we are the ones who are here to give it a sober second thought. In a way, this adds to our role as elected members of Parliament to review proposed legislation, provide oversight and act as representatives to the people.

As I understand it, Bill S-8 tries to close a gap in our immigration law. It would provide a legal framework to declare someone inadmissible or to deport the individual from Canada on the basis of international sanctions. This does not currently exist in the relevant laws. They do not specifically list international sanctions as a reason to reject applicants from permanent residency, citizenship or refugee status. If this was somehow missed, Parliament now has the opportunity to fix it.

An international sanction could come from the Canadian government or it could come from an international body of which we are a member. Either one would prevent the implicated person from legally entering or remaining in our country.

On this point, I would like to congratulate my colleagues across the way for seeming to get something right. In the time that I have been here, it has been rare thing to see something in a government bill that actually makes sense. However, this is something simple and easy enough to support, even it might be baby steps instead of bigger steps. We should all want to protect Canadians from bad actors and to stand up for our values around the world.

Having mentioned international organizations, I want to be clear right now that this aspect of the bill should not, must not and, in fact, does not weaken our sovereignty as a nation.

Despite the Liberal government's efforts to the contrary, every Canadian has a charter right to enter, remain in and leave Canada. Despite the same government's negligence and virtue-signalling over the years, we are a country that should have strong border security. It is essential for us to have control and set our own standard for whoever is allowed to enter.

With international sanctions, we are talking about foreign nationals who are involved in serious crimes or violations of human rights. In principle, this new section of the act would strengthen our ability to protect ourselves and would give us more control. There will be one less excuse for the Liberals not to take the necessary action when it comes to public safety. It will come down to whether the government uses this power and how it chooses to do so.

Unfortunately, it is not enough to pass a new law to make the problem go away, and Canadians have good reason to wonder what results will come of this. We have seen something similar to this already with the Magnitsky law.

In 2017, the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act passed through Parliament unanimously so that the government could impose strong sanctions. These are the types of sanctions that are included in Bill S-8 today. However, since it came into effect, Magnitsky sanctions were starting to get used a little during the following year here and there. The point is that the government has chosen not to make much use of it even though it is can.

We are all aware that human rights violations or significant corruption did not suddenly stop happening four or five years ago either. In all that time, we have listened to people speaking out from different communities in Canada or in other countries, calling for these sanctions to be used as they were intended. Professionals and policy experts have expressed the need for it, and so Conservatives have joined with these voices to demand better.

However, as more and more time goes on, Canadians can see that they need a government that can handle these issues better than the Liberals. We could spend all day talking about these bills and we can pass them, but what good will it do if they are not enforced? That is also what has been happening with Iran and the IRGC.

Four-and-a-half years ago, the Liberals voted for a Conservative motion to list the IRGC as a terrorist entity under the Criminal Code. That still has not happened five years later. The motion passed but the government chose to ignore it, chose to ignore the will of the House. This happened long before the current protest in Iran.

Since those started, there have been reports of hundreds of people who have been killed. Many thousands more have been arrested or detained by police and some of them have received death sentences or have been executed. Of course, the Liberals have made public statements of solidarity with the protesters, but when it comes to taking meaningful action with the motion that they originally voted for, they will not follow through in designating the IRGC. Will they at least explain what is stopping them if they agreed to do it?

It is time to stop playing with empty statements. If the Liberals really want to do something, they have to show it by their actions. We will wait to see if the Minister of Public Safety will use his authority and influence to officially list the IRGC as a terrorist entity.

I know that many of us care about the news stories we are seeing, regardless of party. I also know that we have heard from Canadians and Iranian refugees calling on the government to act decisively.

Back in November, the Iranian community in Ottawa hosted an exhibition of photos and paintings at City Hall, which I was able to attend. It was moving to be there and to talk with people from the community who were present, people who could tell the stories of their family members back home, some of them who were in their home country, experiencing some of this abuse and some of the atrocities that were being committed against their people.

Many of the people who were there had already lost loved ones or had loved ones who were arbitrarily detained and arrested for no valid reason. Many of those people were kids or young adults, people with their whole lives ahead of them, yet their lives were taken, eliminated from this earth. They were not given the chance to live a full life.

More recently, I had the opportunity to join and speak at a rally put on by a group of Iranian Canadians called "Woman, Life, Freedom." A lot of us have heard from the community in different ways, whether it is at an event like the one in Ottawa, in our ridings or at other places across the country. Hopefully this bill will make a difference for them. We will have to see whether the Liberals decide to do anything with it.

Unfortunately, we have learned a lot of discouraging things over the past months about the government's failure to protect our national security. The Liberals have been very slow to act, or in some cases not responded to threats and foreign interference. There have been many displays of weakness for the whole world to see, whether it is our allies or hostile powers. It is unacceptable and it undermines our national security. We need to see the government use its lawful powers to put a stop to it and defend our citizens. That is what it is entrusted to do.

Despite the massive problem of inaction, it is good to see a bill that addresses any problem in our immigration system, which has been neglected by the Liberals for way too long.

I have asked the government about one of my constituents who has been waiting a year to get final approval for a foreign worker to work with his small business, and he is not alone. There is a massive backlog, with over half of the files going beyond the acceptable processing time limits by the government.

The Liberals need to stop breaking everything they touch, if they can help it. They need to get serious about fixing our immigration system. A lot of people want to live and work in our amazing country. We have so many blessings and so much potential in Canada.

Canadians are counting on their leaders to protect what we have and strengthen it for the future, strengthen it in a way that more people will want to come to our country to enjoy the fruits of our prosperity. We take that to heart on this side of the House. We are not going to let them down. We are not going to let current Canadians, future Canadians and the next generation of Canadians down either.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to rise in the House today and offer my thoughts with respect to Bill S-8, a bill aimed primarily at amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other acts, including the Emergencies Act, to ensure that those whom Canada has sanctioned as a result of the war in Ukraine, and others, cannot claim sanctuary in Canada.

I would like to begin by addressing three areas of my remarks this afternoon. I will start by addressing some of the weaknesses in this legislation. This will be followed by thoughts that China poses a much stronger and more relevant case for this legislation. Finally I will say why, despite the obvious flaws, I will be supporting this bill, albeit with reservations.

When this legislation was brought before the Senate last year, the senators heard from Dr. Andrea Charron. Dr. Charron is the director of the Centre for Defence and Security Studies at the University of Manitoba. She noted what many of us in this chamber and the other place have noted over the past seven and a half years, which is that the Liberals really struggle to bring coherent legislation. Whether here or in the Senate, there is a pattern of bringing forward legislation that sounds good, sounds comprehensive and sounds tough but ultimately achieves nothing. That really is the legislative legacy of the current Liberals: symbolism and sanctimony over substance, and virtue signalling rather than leading with virtue. It is legislation that is far more concerned with looking and sounding good rather than with doing good. It is legislation that is ultimately aimed at pleasing certain core constituencies of the Liberal establishment and international entities rather than at achieving real change for Canadians.

As Dr. Charron put it, this bill “repeats a pattern whereby Canada tinkers on the margins of legislation without addressing core policy and process issues.” As Senator MacDonald noted in his critique, “[Dr. Charron's] critique of government bills is becoming all too commonplace of late. Many of the bills that the government is introducing are increasingly reactive measures, usually quick responses to external events. They are hasty measures designed to be symbolic, and it shows.”

Despite the Liberals' claim that they are listening to the experts, which is a claim that experts whose testimony has been systematically blocked or ignored by the Liberals in committee would dispute, their actions are not based on reality, unless they mean experts in how to keep the government from collapsing under the weight of its own self-righteousness and its own ineptness. The scandal-plagued government and Prime Minister consistently bring forward legislation, when in reality, as noted by expert witnesses at committee, changes to departmental processes and policies would likely be more efficient and ultimately more effective.

This virtue-signalling, reactive approach to legislation is often coupled with creating a straw man. Rather than dealing with the real issue or causes, the current government creates a false narrative with false bogeymen and false spectres of impending disaster, and then it attacks anyone who attempts to take a critical approach to its disingenuous actions. Dr. Charron asked the Senate committee a simple question: Is this actually a problem that needs to be addressed? Has this actually happened? Are there thousands of pro-war, pro-regime Russians whom we have sanctioned breaking down the door to get into Canada? Dr. Charron was unaware of such an occurrence.

The Senate heard from Richard St. Marseille, the director general of immigration and external review policy at the CBSA. Mr. St. Marseille informed the committee that no sanctioned individual from any country is known to have entered Canada in the past five years. There have been refusals abroad, including five under the Special Economic Measures Act and 10 under the Magnitsky law, but even those refusals are out of 1,858 individuals sanctioned under SEMA and roughly 2,200 individuals listed under various sanction grounds. To put it another way, none of these individuals have entered Canada, and fewer than 1% have even attempted to do so.

We have a lot of problems with our immigration and border security systems right now, but the simple facts and figures show that this is not one of them, nor is it likely to become one of them, because, despite the Prime Minister's belief that he has created a progressive utopia where everyone wants to live, many people in other parts of the world, including Russia, do not see it that way. Many Russians look at similar so-called progressive policies by the Zelenskyy government in Ukraine as a degradation of traditional values and, by extension, as part of their justification for invading in the first place: in order to rescue Ukrainians from what they view as western decadence and widespread immorality. A vast majority of Russians are appalled by the decline of traditional family values and what they see as the failures and weaknesses of western culture.

A growing number of Russians may be opposed to the war, even to President Putin, but let us not mistake that for a seismic culture shift that will suddenly embrace progressive policies and values. The notion that we are going to have a flood of Russians, especially those who have been sanctioned by Canada for supporting the regime, and who have had their assets seized, suddenly wanting and trying to come here is, frankly, ridiculous. They know they are not wanted here, and that is fine with them because they do not want to live here. There is no evidence or even indication this has been, is currently, or will become a problem.

We do have a pressing public safety and immigration problem, and that is with the Chinese Communist government. We have the Chinese ambassador and an untold number of agents of Beijing working to actively undermine our democracy; to intimidate and harm expats and family members, even members of the House; and to engage in espionage and cyber-attacks.

The government has consistently refused to address the actions of Beijing; better put, it has actively covered up for China's government. There are our National Microbiology Laboratory, the Chinese police stations that continue to operate despite the government's claim they do not, and the government's continuing to fund them through the Liberals' Canada summer jobs program. In fact, if one substituted China for Russia as the impetus for this legislation, it would be a lot easier to see this as a genuine effort rather than as just more virtue signalling. The opposition has been demanding, for months, the removal of the Chinese ambassador, the shutting down of these police stations, a stop to the government's covering up for its friends in Beijing, and its coming clean about what happened at the National Microbiology Laboratory and with election interference.

Instead, the government seeks to keep Canadians in the dark and distracted by creating a straw man so they will not pay attention to what the actual problem is. I really think the MO of the PMO has become to address something that has not been a problem, that is not a problem and is unlikely to become a problem, in order to distract Canadians from the myriad problems the government has created. Rather than address the illegal guns that the government has allowed to flood across the border, as used by the violent criminals it has kept out of jail, it goes after law-abiding firearm owners. Rather than go after its wealthy friends, it labels small business owners as tax cheats and goes after them. Now, rather than deal with the pressing and proven problem of Beijing, it raises the unsubstantiated spectre of an influx of sanctioned Russians.

I am not denying that Russia presents a threat to our Arctic sovereignty or to our digital infrastructure, or that the invasion of Ukraine is not a problem. It is a big problem, and Canada has gone above and beyond in our efforts to help Ukraine. However, this is Canada's Parliament, and those who poses an immediate domestic threat and should not be coming here are not the Russians; they are those from Beijing. This is really my main point here today. If we are going to pass this legislation, let us make sure we do so for the right reasons and use it against the right people. Let us use it to finally deal with Beijing, to finally deal comprehensively with the IRGC and those who are already here and pose a direct threat to Canadians and to our democracy.

With that said, as I noted at the top of my speech, despite these reservations, I will be voting in favour of this legislation. First, it would address a gap in the existing legislation that would allow IRCC to deny an individual based on international sanctions. Second, it would grant new powers to the Minister of Public Safety that would allow the minister to make a determination and issue a removal order. While any additional ministerial power, especially with the current government and its track record of shunning accountability at every turn, is a cause for concern, the opposition hopes that by removing the disingenuous excuse of so-called departmental dependence, the minister would now act in accordance with the will of the House to remove bad actors. Third, Conservatives have always been strong supporters of sanctions and the Magnitsky law, and have been critical of cases where individuals with ties to certain organizations but who are not necessarily on the terrorism list, like members of the IRGC, have been allowed to enter and remain in Canada. The legislation would remove the government's chief excuse for failing to deal judiciously with such individuals, so there is a chance it would become useful down the road, especially once a new Conservative government cleans up the legislation.

Despite the obvious flaws, there is sufficient merit to this legislation, and I will be supporting it.

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

Madam Speaker, it is important in Bill S-8 that we have the ability to have coordination among the different legislative pieces that are there to ensure that undesirables are not able to stay in Canada.

Once in a while there will be a need to proceed on a case-by-case basis, and I think that in that regard, ministerial oversight would still be required. However, what I like very much about this bill is that it brings together all of these pieces of legislation to deliver a clear message of what we will not accept here in Canada.

[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.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to get my remarks on Bill S-8 in Hansard today.

We know this bill is about sanctions and the sanction regime of this country. Sanctions are an important tool the government can use to deal with bad actors in the world.

One thing to note about recognizing the sovereignty of nations, as we want our sovereignty to be recognized, is the reality that we cannot enforce our laws in other countries. What we can do, though, is deal with other countries as entire entities or with individuals if they choose to come to Canada.

There is a whole host of reasons we would use sanctions. Most often, as we have seen lately, countries that violate human rights are subject to Canadian sanctions. Countries that do not respect the borders of other countries also get sanctions. Countries that are threatening to Canada, although maybe not directly, would be sanctioned too. We also sanction individuals. We may sanction folks who have committed heinous crimes in other countries that our courts have no jurisdiction over.

This tool has been used for many years, and in my time here in Parliament, we have improved, enhanced and worked to increase the sanctioning abilities of Canada. I am talking about the Magnitsky act. When I first came here, the Magnitsky law was passed, and more recently the name was changed to the Magnitsky act to better reflect what we are talking about here.

Putting sanctions on particular countries is something the government has the power to do, and it does do that from time to time. One is banning folks from coming here. I do not know if members know this, but I am living under a sanction. I am one of the Canadians who have been banned from Russia. I do not think it was an overly effective sanction, as I was not planning to go to Russia anytime soon, but nonetheless, I am being sanctioned by Russia. In the same way, through sanctions, Canada will ban people coming from particular parts of the world from participating in Canadian society or visiting their family members who live in Canada. That is something Bill S-8 attempts to achieve. It would prevent folks on a sanctions list who are from a country being sanctioned from coming to and visiting Canada.

What is interesting about all of this is that it does not seem to be a problem. When folks came to the Senate committee, they noted that there did not appear to be any attempts by people who are sanctioned to try to come to Canada. In the same way, with me being sanctioned and made a persona non grata in Russia, there is no major threat of me breaking the sanction due to the fact that I am not planning to go to Russia anytime soon. Folks who are sanctioned by Canada often are not travelling to Canada. It was therefore noted at committee that this appears to be a solution in search of a problem. It appears the government is attempting to look like it is doing something when in fact there is no issue to be seen here.

This bill does theoretically ensure that folks who are under a sanction do not come to Canada, but at the same time, it gives dramatic leeway to the minister. Once again, this is where we run into trouble with the idea of the rule of law. The law should be written down so that folks are able to read it, and there should not be ambiguity in how it is enforced. When ministerial discretion is given to a minister, one case may be judged and ruled on differently than another, which is the challenge that folks have brought forward. This bill introduces some ambiguity as to who will be allowed into Canada and who will not be allowed into Canada.

I understand that there are times when we are challenged by the rule of law given that it is written rigidly. We can see that what is legal and what is right and just sometimes come into conflict. In that case, I imagine we could allow for ministerial discretion, but it will be a challenge for folks to bring this to the minister in a uniform way. Folks who are facing the same situation will depend on their connections and will depend on who they know in order to get an audience with the minister and get the minister's discretion to come into force, either to prevent folks from coming into Canada or to get around a particular sanction in a particular country.

There is some cause for concern that, once again, perhaps this is another piece of legislation where the rule of law is being undermined by ministerial discretion. We have seen this before with the Liberals. They do not necessarily do their homework when they are designing laws. They will put together a piece of legislation that says something nice at the very top and then turns out to be basically a blank piece of paper underneath. We have seen this before. Then they will say, “Trust us. We will write it in the regulations when we get to the regulations.”

We have seen this with their child care bill. We have seen this with their dental care program. We have also seen this with their disability benefit. The disability benefit regime is, in my opinion, probably the best case, or the worst case depending on how we look at it, to show how the government does not do the hard work of governing with legislation. Rather, it says, “We want to put this program in place, but trust us; we will get it right once we get there.”

We do not have any criteria on eligibility. We do not know who is going to get it. We do not know how this new program that is yet to be designed will impact the average Canadian. To some degree, that is what we see with Bill S-8 as well. It is governing by ministerial edict. It is governing without regard for what the law has written down.

All of that is a concern, but I want to bring this back to the point from folks at committee. They mentioned that there has not been, as far as they can tell, any attempt by somebody under Canadian sanctions to try to flout and get around those sanctions to come to Canada. That in particular is, I think, interesting since the government spent time on this bill.

The government will often accuse us, the Conservatives, of wasting time in this place. We are the official opposition. It is our job to scrutinize bills. It is our job to ensure that time is spent debating them, listening to Canadians from across the country with different perspectives and outlining problems that may be in legislation and problems that may be concerning to Canadians.

This is an interesting piece of legislation, as there has not been a case the government can point to, or a story, where somebody who has been under sanction has gained access to Canada through some of these measures. What I can say is that the government has let folks into Canada who have not been under sanction but who probably should not have come to Canada. I am thinking of one of the generals of the Sri Lankan army, who is responsible for a significant number of deaths in the Tamil community. The Tamil community was very upset that he was allowed in.

These are some of the things I am concerned about with this bill. I am looking forward to the discussion.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite said I complained. In fact, the record will clearly show that I stood up, even when I was in opposition, and said that time allocation is a necessary tool in order to get legislation passed. It is unfortunate that, at times, some opposition parties feel that it does not matter whether they support the legislation or how timely the legislation might be; it is more important to use legislation in virtually all situations as a mechanism to prevent the government from passing legislation.

Bill S-8 is legislation that should be, relatively speaking, non-controversial. If we take a look at the issue of human rights violations and canvass our constituents about it, a vast majority would be very upset at the notion of the human rights violations taking place anywhere in the world. I would suggest that over 95% of them would be upset.

I am very proud of the fact that, a few years back, we established a human rights museum in my home city of Winnipeg. For many residents, this amplifies the issue of human rights.

We have had members of Parliament, both today and in the past, who have been strong advocates in fighting against those who inflict human rights violations, whether it is an individual, a state or any other organization taking away basic human rights. I think of such individuals as Irwin Cotler and David Matas, whom I had the honour and privilege to know, at least in part, and whose passion I was able to see. I heard them articulate why it is so important that, no matter which political party one belongs to, we get behind it as legislators and do what we can. Ideally, we should do so collectively.

I think of the Magnitsky act and the push to ultimately get that into law. As members will know, one can come up with an idea, but it can sometimes be a challenge to put it into law. Fortunately, through the support of all parties inside the House, through a private member's bill, we were ultimately able to make that happen. The desire was there, and justifiably so.

Take a look at Canada and the world. I will direct this point to the speaker before me. Canada's population is about 38 million people, yet look at the positioning that Canada has around the world among the 150-plus countries and states. Canada carries a great deal of influence throughout the world. We are a country in very high demand, in terms of people wanting to come to Canada. We constantly get people coming on visits to Ottawa to meet with parliamentarians, civil society and different organizations. We have organizations scattered throughout the country that provide all forms of humanitarian aid for countries around the world.

I believe that Canada is a leader in many different areas, including the area of human rights. It is something that we can all take a sense of pride and ownership in, I would suggest, no matter what political party we are part of. We see that in some of the legislative debates that we have had. I have always appreciated having debate and the take-note debate, for example, in regard to what is taking place in Ukraine. When we talk about the sanctions in Bill S-8, the bill would ensure that there is a direct consequence to individuals who have been sanctioned by the government, so that they will never be able to enter Canada. If members look at past emergency debates or the take-note debate on the issue of Ukraine alone, members would find that there have been many hours spent debating it over the years.

I was in opposition in 2014, when there was the uprising that was taking place in the Maidan, or Independence Square, in Kyiv. I had the opportunity to go over there on a visit and witness some of the things first-hand, as I know many of my colleagues have done.

I have heard the horror stories about the human rights violations that are taking place, whether by the Russian regime or the Iranian regime. It is terrifying. The discrimination based on gender is disgusting, not to mention the atrocities with regard to issues of torture, such as a war that is ongoing and unjustified.

That is why we have this legislation. From my perspective, it is a complement to the Magnitsky Act. We are saying we want to ensure that there are sanctions against these people who are causing all these issues of a horrific nature, but not only that, Bill S-8 says that we do not want them in Canada. I think that is a powerful statement. I think it adds value to what I suggest is Canada's place in the world, where we are reflecting true Canadian values, which are there to protect human rights. That is why, when I look at this particular piece of legislation, unless the Conservative Party or another party is opposing it, I do not necessarily see why we would cause a delay like the one we witnessed this morning.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, there is the odd occasion in which I agree wholeheartedly with what the member opposite says inside the chamber. I really appreciated her comments on why it is so incredibly important that we recognize legislation for what it is and, yes, have some debate on it. However, to intentionally prevent the passage of legislation does not do a service to Canadians.

Bill S-8 is a good example. My understanding is that we are going to get fairly good support for Bill S-8, whether that is from the Conservatives, Bloc members or New Democrats. I am not too sure about the Greens on Bill S-8, but I assume they are supporting it. I get a thumbs-up from the leader of the Green Party. I believe there is fairly wide support for the initiative.

Even on legislation the Conservatives support, they want to push the envelope in preventing the legislation from passing. The Conservative Party members are familiar with that particular tactic. When they were in government, the Conservative majority government instituted time allocation all the time.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague for her speech on the important bill we are debating, Bill S-8.

Of course, I agree with her that we must try to raise the level of debate and move away from partisanship, particularly when it comes to important bills.

Where I tend to disagree with her is on the moralizing we hear from the New Democratic Party. Today they are telling us that we should stop playing games. I would remind people and parliamentarians present in the House that the NDP helped the Liberals pass 26 time allocation motions to shorten the debates.

This shows a lack of consideration and respect for democracy and for the parliamentarians who are elected to do that work. Our job is to come and talk and debate bills.

My question for my colleague is simple: Does she think democracy is a game?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, my question related to Bill S-8 is on my private member's bill, Bill C-281. The NDP, supported by the Conservatives, introduced the idea in the amendment to have an international human rights strategy. Unfortunately, the Liberals decided to shoot that idea down. I still think it is a great one. Does the member agree with me?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned, we need to actually get the proper sanction regime and one that is effective. Bill S-8 is a step in the right direction. Canada plays an important role, not just in the situation with Russia but for other countries as well, such as addressing, for example, Iran, the Iranian regime and the atrocious human rights violations. We need to bring those measures in place for other countries, such as South Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and I could go on with a list. It is very important for Canada to get our sanctions regime in order.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise to enter into debate with respect to Bill S-8. People may ask what Bill S-8 would do. The bill would make changes to sanctions related to immigration enforcement by bringing the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act into line with the SEMA. It would make sanctioned individuals, including previously sanctioned individuals, inadmissible to Canada.

Ukraine has also asked Canada to take this step with regard to Russians on our sanctions list. At present, the great breach of international peace and security is the primary mechanism that Canada is sanctioning Russian individuals under, and that does not currently trigger the inadmissibility provisions. That is why we have Bill S-8 before us, which is meant to fix this.

I should note, though, that what Bill S-8 would not do is address the absence of parliamentary oversight of our sanctions regime or enforcement in areas that are not immigration related; that is, the seizing of assets. Therefore, a lot of work needs to be done to fix our sanctions regime if Bill S-8 is to pass.

The bill would not fix the challenge of clarity either, for example, why the government adds some names but not others and for what reasons. Further, public communication and access to sanction lists is still subpar. We need a comprehensive review of Canada's sanctions regime. The NDP has proposed a study at the foreign affairs committee on Canada's sanctions regime, and we hope that study will take place this winter.

Canada's foremost expert on sanctions policy, Andrea Charron, has said:

While there is nothing wrong with highlighting in the Immigration and Refugee Act that inadmissibility due to sanctions is possible, this repeats a pattern whereby Canada tinkers on the margins of legislation without addressing core policy and process issues. If we are to continue to sanction autonomously with allies, we need to fix fundamental issues of policy and process.

This has been put on the public record by experts, so the bill is a step in the right direction, to be sure.

We are debating a bill that is supported by all the parties in the House, but what is happening is the Conservatives are trying to use parliamentary tools to delay progress of the work in the House. Not only are we debating this bill that everybody supports and wants to get done, but the Conservatives have moved an amendment to change the title of the bill. This is a tactic. In fact, at this moment, what we are technically debating is a motion to change the title of the bill. I have seen this play over and over again in this Parliament.

Last week, we had debate on the child care bill. What did the Conservatives want to do? We were debating the child care bill until midnight, a bill that we wanted to move forward to ensure that child care provisions were made available to Canadians. Instead of doing that, we were debating a motion to change the title of the bill. That is what we are doing again.

I find it distressing that those are the tactics on which the Conservatives repeatedly rely. The sole purpose of that is not to talk about the substance of the issues and the importance of the issue and how we can improve the legislation or how we can improve the situation for the people who need the changes, but, rather, it is a tactic that is deployed by the Conservatives to upset progress in the House, all for partisan politics. It is all for the Conservatives' own political motivation. It has nothing to do with the work that is really important for the people.

With respect to the issue around sanctions, why is this so important? We need to ensure that inadmissibility is in place. We are talking about Russians who have waged this illegal war against Ukrainians. We are also talking about other countries that are faced with sanctions as well.

However, the ineffectiveness of our sanction regime has been highlighted over and over again. In addition to the inadmissibility piece, we need to also look at the issue around sanctioning that applies to assets as well. So far, what we have seen with respect to that arena is that very little effort has been made. It has not been effective.

We are now talking about foreign interference as it relates to China. For members of Parliament, including myself, who have been targeted by the Communist Chinese Party, there is a question about sanctions applying to China as well that needs to be in play. There are a number of different countries for which we need an effective sanctioning regime.

I would urge the members of the House, the Conservatives included, to stop playing games. Let us get on with the work. We are here to do this work and move forward. It is important to pass this bill and bring forward accountability measures for sanctioning regimes.

The House resumed 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, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of Motion No. 1.

Motion in Amendment

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

Madam Speaker, as I said, the best time to speak is just before oral question period.

What I was saying is that Quebeckers and Canadians want our country to continue welcoming people fleeing repression or intolerable humanitarian crises. I would like to think that this is the context for 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.

Bill S‑8 is currently at third reading and has been studied and amended by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs. I had the opportunity to replace my Bloc Québécois colleague from Montarville on that committee and to work with my colleagues from other parties.

Members know that I am among those who believe that, despite differing ideas and political visions, most of the time collaboration helps parliamentary work. We witnessed that recently once again with Bill C‑41. It also demonstrates that despite sometimes having different, and even diametrically opposed, positions, we can work together and get things done. Our work is to find common ground. Everyone knows that politics is the art of compromise.

In short, it is this teamwork that will have helped improve the bill currently before us. I must recognize the remarkable work done by the committee and all the parties that came together to amend Bill S‑8 so that it would not undermine attempts by people who want to escape the war. That was the main objective. Let us not forget that one of the concerns of the organizations was that some people from a sanctioned country might not be able to seek refuge because of the new provisions in this bill.

Bill S‑8 also ensures that Canada meets its international obligations when it comes to welcoming refugees. This means that individuals targeted by a sanctions regime could claim asylum. However, they would not be able to receive permanent resident status as long as they remain targeted by a sanctions regime. Bill S‑8 therefore fixes the problems that were introduced by the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, which prohibited individuals targeted by a sanctions regime to file a claim for refugee protection. It also allows border officers to turn away individuals who would be targeted by a sanctions regime as soon as they arrive.

That correction is in line with the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, which states that only convictions “by a final judgement of a particularly serious crime [or a crime which] constitutes a danger to the community of that country” are sufficient grounds to remove a refugee from the country or deny them entry. I sense that people are interested in what I am saying.

The bill also now includes a provision that requires it to be reviewed after three years to determine its effectiveness, which is excellent news. That is a fine amendment that will enable us to make changes to the bill, if ever it were to have undesirable effects on certain refugee groups.

In short, it is a good bill that was improved by my colleagues from all parties in order to remedy the situation for certain asylum seekers. This bill will assure those who are fleeing war, corruption and oppression that it is indeed they that we intend to protect from armed conflicts, not those who instigate such conflicts. Those who violate human rights are not welcome in Quebec and Canada. In solidarity with our allies and out of aversion for warmongering regimes and organizations, the Bloc Québécois invites all parties to unanimously vote in favour of this bill so that Quebec and Canada are and remain welcoming nations for asylum seekers, and not safe havens for criminals.

In closing, I will repeat that we are here to do a job. When parties collaborate and move a bill in the right direction by working together, we, the parliamentarians, are judged by the people we represent. Our constituents must be thinking that, for once, parliamentarians are getting along and working together to improve bills for the well-being of the people of Canada, but also for the well-being of people coming from other countries who would like Canada and Quebec to become their new home.

I congratulate my colleagues once again. I want to highlight their work, and I believe that it should become a good example for other committees. It was a pleasure to rise today just before oral question period.

[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.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

moved:

That Bill S‑8 be amended by deleting the long title.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address Bill S-8 today. This is important legislation that Conservatives have been supportive of. It is also an opportunity to discuss the significant problems with the sanctions regime that we have seen under the government, including the failure to move quickly enough to sanction perpetrators of violence around the world, the failure to be consistent and the failure to apply sanctions in some critical cases where that is required.

I want to focus my remarks today on expressing support for the modifications, as we supported them at committee, around inadmissibility to Canada being tied in with sanctioning. I also want to highlight the gaps, in terms of the government's responses when it has come to sanctioning.

The trend we are seeing overall, in terms of sanctioning, is to try to be as precise and as targeted as possible. This is done to minimize the harm to a civilian population in association with sanctioning and to have sharp sanctions against perpetrators of violence to hold them accountable for their own actions, as well as to sanction those institutions that are involved in violence and the flow of resources that allows violent regimes to hurt their own people and people in other countries.

More and more precise sanctions, broadly speaking, are a positive development. However, as we move in this direction, we need to ensure precision and enforcement, as well as that we are not missing things or allowing holes in the process that render the sanctions that have been put in place ineffective. We also need to ensure that enforcement is in place as required and that it is effective.

Another trend we have seen is the adoption throughout the world of Magnitsky sanctions legislation, which is part of that trend of narrowing in precision and targeting those responsible for violence. In particular, it aims sanctions at those involved in gross violations of human rights.

In the past, those involved in violations of human rights in other parts of the world would generally have stayed in their own countries. However, in the globalized world we live in today, it is much more common for oppressors, oligarchs and maybe their family members to take their ill-gotten gains and try to use them to vacation, attend school and do other things in various other parts of the world, including the United States, Canada, Europe, etc. Magnitsky sanctions provide us with a unique opportunity to try to deter human rights abuses by saying to those who are involved in gross violations of human rights that they are not going to be able to engage in this kind of travel, move their money or spend time in Canada or other parts of the world if they cross certain thresholds in terms of violations of human rights.

Another reason these types of sanctions are very effective is that, when people are part of violent autocratic regimes, they often realize that these regimes can turn on those within them. As the saying goes, “Sometimes the show trial comes for you.” These corrupt officials who have been involved in violence are often thinking in the back of their minds, “What is the escape hatch that I could have if I need to leave my country at some point? Can I move my money? Can I create a kind of golden parachute that would allow me to leave the regime I am a part of, if I need to?”

Magnitsky sanctions, by sanctioning individuals who are involved in human rights abuses, are a way of saying that if individuals cross a certain threshold in terms of violation of fundamental human rights or if individuals are identified as being involved in violence against civilians, human rights violations or threats to international peace and security, they could be sanctioned and therefore prevented from finding that escape hatch. One corollary to the point of people maybe wanting to escape at some point but being told that they would not be able to escape and using that as a way of deterring human rights abuses is that, in order for these sanctions to be effective, they have to be imposed in coordination.

If Canada, the U.S. and our partners in Europe are sanctioning different people, then those who may be sanctioned in one place but not another would still have that escape option available to them. However, if like-minded countries are coordinated, then it shuts off the potential options of escape for those involved in human rights abuses. Therefore, it puts pressure on them to stop or at least to limit their violations of fundamental human rights.

They know there will be significant consequences for them if they persist in this direction. I think we have a big problem with impunity right now. People who are involved in human rights violations believe they will get away with it, because we do not have effective systems to hold people accountable. Magnitsky sanctions are a key tool for countering that.

It is in that spirit that Senator Andreychuk and, in this place, my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman put forward the Magnitsky sanctions bill. It initially received a cold response from the government, but eventually, it was passed unanimously. With Bill S-8, if an individual is subject to sanctions, including under the Magnitsky act, they are also considered inadmissible to Canada. It lines up inadmissibility provisions with sanctions provisions. This is positive.

The problem is that the Magnitsky act and other sanctions tools give the government tools to use for sanctioning individuals, but unfortunately, the government has been reluctant to use them. For a number of years now, the government has not used the Magnitsky sanctions tool. When it was passed, the Magnitsky act provided the government with tools for sanctioning human rights abusers under the Special Economic Measures Act, and some of that has been done.

However, the absence of the use of the Magnitsky act is troubling, especially because the act is an important mechanism of coordination among allies. Multiple countries have a Magnitsky act, and if we are able to use our Magnitsky act and coordinate with other countries' use of their Magnitsky acts, we can send a stronger, clearer message of deterrence to human rights abusers.

The government has been very reluctant to use a tool that it has been given by Parliament and encouraged by Parliament to use. Recognizing the failure of the government to use the Magnitsky act sufficiently, we have actually put forward a new private member's bill. It just passed this place, and it is on its way to the Senate.

Bill C-281 would create a parliamentary trigger mechanism that would allow a committee, in the House or in the Senate, to pass a motion calling on the government to list an individual under the Magnitsky act. The government would then have to provide a response to that committee within a time frame consistent with the time frame for responses to committee reports in the Standing Orders. It would have to provide that response regardless of, for instance, whether there is a prorogation.

We recognize the value of the coordination that we are seeing in Bill S-8, but like any other sanctions tools, it is only as good as its use. If the government is failing to use that tool, then we are still going to have a significant problem.

I want to use this opportunity to call on the government to use more sanctions and more effective targeted sanctions against the military junta in Burma. I have met with various communities from Burma recently. There is an urgent need to support pro-democracy and opposition movements in Burma, as well as to apply tighter, more rigorous and more effective sanctions against the Burmese regime.

That is the case for a number of reasons. One is that the Burmese regime is supporting and co-operating with the Putin regime. We see increasing collaboration among countries that are seeking to violently upset the international rules-based order, as well as a sharing of weapons and technology among them. If we want to effectively sanction the Putin regime and deter further violence by that regime, then we also have to be sanctioning the partners that are supplying them with military technology; that includes the government of Burma.

The government of Burma has also been involved in horrific violence against civilians. It is undertaking a campaign of air strikes targeting civilians that is horrific in its proportions. It follows, of course, the Rohingya genocide that we spoke extensively about in the House a number of years ago. It has been positive to see an increasing collaboration or reconciliation among various ethnic minority communities and the pro-democracy movement, including Rohingya in that process, of course.

More work needs to be done there, and Canada needs to stand with opposition groups. That includes sanctioning the Burmese regime. In particular, the government should be applying tough sanctions to prevent aviation fuel from getting into Burma. Aviation fuel is what is allowing the military junta in Burma to undertake these horrific air strikes against civilians. Sadly, until now, this has been a gap in terms of government sanctions, but I hope it will step up and improve in that respect.

Overall, we are supportive of Bill S-8, but we are very concerned about the government's failure to use the tools that are available to it on sanctions. We call on it to apply those tools more effectively.

Speaker's Ruling

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

There is one motion in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill S-8. Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon.

I will now put Motion No. 1 to the House.

The House proceeded to the 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, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

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

The legal frameworks for designating Wagner as a terror group do exist here in Canada. Are there any errors, omissions or holes in that framework that you would find more useful in more speedily responding to, quite frankly, the pressure to have it listed?

This afternoon we'll be debating Bill S-8 at third reading. This committee studied some updated legislation that links admissibility and the sanctions regime. Is there something missing in our terrorist designation legal frameworks that would allow for speedier responses?

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would say it is a pleasure to be able to rise and speak today, but I was actually expecting that we would be debating Bill S-8. Bill S-8 deals with sanctions on foreign nationals.

A member from the Conservative Party yells, “Surprise.” It is no surprise. This does not surprise me. What it does is really, once again, just demonstrate the Conservative Party of Canada's lack of respect in terms of what Canadians expect of legislators, which is to be able to deal with issues that are important.

Today, the Conservative Party says, “Well, housing is an important issue.” Yes, we concur. There is no doubt that housing is an important issue. In fact, we have been dealing with this issue for years now, unlike the Conservative Party. The reality is that this is just an attempt at a filibuster coming from the Conservative Party. It is interesting that Conservatives say housing is an important issue, yet they had 10 opposition days when they could have decided on the kind of vote or question. They could have had the “whereases” explaining the issues. Out of the last 10 opposition days, what did they choose? They chose to talk about the price on pollution, opposition day after opposition day. Now they try to say, “Well, know what? We are concerned about housing.” Where was that concern on opposition days? It did not exist. That was the reality for the Conservative Party, but today it says it does not want to address the government legislation, so what it will do is bring in yet another concurrence report and will say it is about housing. This way, government members and other opposition members will say that housing is an important issue and that we should be debating it today. I would argue that we could have been debating from an opposition perspective on many of the other opportunities by which the Conservatives could have brought it forward.

Let us talk about hypocrisy. I think most Canadians would be somewhat surprised that, during the 90s, we had the Charlottetown accord, and, within the Charlottetown accord, we had every political party in the House of Commons ultimately advocating that Ottawa should not be playing a role in housing, that it was provincial jurisdiction. I know that because I was in the north end of Winnipeg debating Bill Blaikie, advocating that we needed to have a presence in national housing. Only one political party has consistently, over the years, advocated that the federal government play virtually no role in housing, and that is the Conservative Party of Canada. That is the only party. Through the last eight years, as we have been bringing forward numerous housing policies, we have seen the Conservative Party continuously arguing or voting against them. Understanding jurisdictional responsibilities and understanding what role the federal government can actually play in housing is, I would suggest, relatively important. I have not witnessed that from the Conservative Party of Canada, and I do not say that lightly.

I was first elected in 1988. My first responsibility was as the official opposition whip, along with having housing as my critic portfolio. Even through those years, every year I invested a great deal of my energy into the issue of housing. I have seen the rises and the falls of the industry. I understand what it is that the federal government can and cannot do. I also see the lack of interest from the Conservative Party.

Now, Conservatives understand and they see the anxiety that is out there because of issues like interest, because of the demand there is for housing, and now they want to make it an issue and they want to blame everything on Ottawa, as if Ottawa were to blame for the housing crisis. I hate to think what issues and crises there would be if it were not for Canadians' kicking Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada out in 2015.

Let us take a look at some of the things we have done in the last five to seven years. In the history of Canada, never before have we seen more money invested into the housing file than by the current Prime Minister and government. We have adopted the first national housing strategy, which not only establishes a framework but also invests billions of dollars into housing. Every region of our country has benefited from it.

If we look at the province of Manitoba and the makeup of housing there, most people would be surprised. It has been a while, but I would guesstimate that we are probably talking somewhere in the neighbourhood of 20,000-plus units that the federal government directly subsidizes every month to ensure that housing is more affordable.

These are the types of commitments that have been made over the years, even by previous governments, to support non-profit housing. This is complemented by the national housing strategy, which is there to support not only expanding the housing stock in Canada, but also to improve its quality.

A good example is a program that I think we underestimate the true value of, which is the greener homes grant. There are homes that are in need of repair throughout our communities, whether urban or rural, in every area of the country. We have a program that provides encouragement for people to fix up their homes. Every time there is a grant issued, a home is being repaired, jobs are being created, the home is becoming more energy-efficient and the quality of Canada's housing stock is improving. This is something we should all be concerned about. At the very least, I can assure members that the government has demonstrated this by bringing forward the program.

There are other aspects. I love the program that deals with the multi-generational home renovation tax credit. I look at the community I represent and the number of families that choose to support their parents, grandparents or children with disabilities as dependents. They are not forced to do it. We are providing them the opportunity of a tax credit to create a special space to accommodate them. Again, this is something that complements the housing stock in Canada. We do not hear about it much, but I think it is important for us to emphasize it. I would suggest that it is part of the solution.

The Minister of Finance, who is working with the Minister of Housing, and is supported by members of this caucus, has recognized the true value of housing co-ops. Housing co-ops are a viable and healthy alternative to buying a home, because they are co-operatives.

I am a big fan of housing co-ops. During the eighties, I played a role in the community of Weston in developing the Weston housing co-op. There is a difference between someone who lives in a housing co-op and someone who lives in an apartment. The biggest difference would likely be the word “profit”, but the real difference is that the person is not a tenant; they are a resident.

Once again, under the Prime Minister, we have a government that is committed to looking at ways we can expand housing co-ops. By doing that, we are expanding the housing supply. We can encourage individuals and groups to look at ways in which housing co-ops can be established, so that individuals will be able to have that joint ownership. That is something we never heard about under Stephen Harper and the Conservatives.

There is the idea of supporting infill housing in a non-traditional way, and that would factor in Habitat for Humanity. I have said this before. Habitat for Humanity has likely done more for infill housing in the city of Winnipeg than any government program has. I suggest that governments, at all different levels, need to support organizations like Habitat for Humanity. It has built hundreds of homes in the province of Manitoba alone, and it is a national organization.

In advocating with other caucus colleagues, we have seen federal support go towards Habitat for Humanity. I do not recall seeing that under Stephen Harper. This is building homes and making homes available for people who would never really get the opportunity to own a home. They do it through sweat equity, as well as the work and efforts of the community as a whole.

It is far better than the infill programs the government used to support during the nineties. I still think we could probably support municipalities in looking at ways of doing that. I think all sorts of opportunities are still there. For the first time in a generation, we have a government that is proactive and is looking to support the industry with things like infill houses.

When listening to the Conservatives, we find they are now saying that they need to pass the blame on to Ottawa or the government, even though the current government and Prime Minister have done far more on the housing file than any other government in generations has. Of the ideas that come from the Conservatives, the only one that comes to mind is in the last election, when they said they would give tax breaks to our wealthiest landlords.

The Conservatives stand up and say that wherever we subsidize or provide funds for public transit, where there are hubs, there should be residential housing, with a higher concentration and density of people. They have been saying this for a while. Of course that should be happening. In fact, it has been happening. It is working with municipalities.

Someone does not have to be a genius to understand the concept of having a hub, where a subway, train or high-speed bus will stop, and the advantages of having towers or a higher density located there. It only makes sense to do that. This is the irony: How much money did the Conservatives and Stephen Harper invest in supporting public transit compared with the current government?

Once again, where the Conservatives failed, the current government has risen to the occasion. We continue to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into public transit. We continue to work with municipalities, in particular, our bigger cities of Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal and Winnipeg, as well as the east coast, to support public transit. I suspect that we will continue to see higher-density housing where it makes sense.

The Conservatives take an approach in which they have to be negative and hit hard on what they call the “gatekeepers”, which are the municipalities, mayors, reeves, city councillors and so forth, for not doing what they should be doing. I believe, as the government believes, that the federal government needs to demonstrate leadership, as we have, and work with provinces and municipalities, large and small, to ensure that we can build more homes and improve our current housing stock. That has been amplified, given the crisis situation we are in, through programs like the rapid housing initiative. I have seen the Minister of Housing stop into Winnipeg on several occasions. I have made announcements and dealt with press releases in Manitoba, both in urban and rural areas, dealing with things through the rapid housing initiative. We continue to work with the provinces and the municipalities on these types of programs, because they are making a difference.

We need to be able to support municipalities and encourage areas that can be developed in a relatively quick fashion. We have indicated that it is our objective to see the number of new home constructions double over the next decade. In provinces like mine, in Manitoba, we want to see more immigration come into our province and an expanded economy. To succeed in this, it will take all three levels of government working together. That means that, on certain files, it is absolutely critical that there is a high sense of co-operation. I would suggest that housing is one of those files. I can say that we do not get that co-operation if all we are doing is consistently slamming another level of government. Yes, there will be disagreements at times, and there is a negotiating process in many different ways. However, on the housing file, I believe that what is expected of the national government is actually being delivered, especially if one compares us to any other government in the last generations over 50 years. We have shown that we are greatly concerned about this issue.

My colleague asked about Alberta and the issue of rent control. We appreciate that rents are going up in many areas of the country. We are concerned about that, but, as has been very clearly demonstrated, that area is in the provincial jurisdiction. It is great that the member raises the issue here, but she should also be raising it with the Alberta government. As I said, we have a role; we are fulfilling that role, and we are constantly looking at ways in which we can enhance our leadership role, but all levels of government need to be working together in order to properly deal with this crisis. I am confident that we are doing all we can as a national government. However, we are always open to listening to what Canadians have to say on the issue.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, inflation is a global phenomenon. It is good that Canada is below the OECD average. It is also below the G7 average, the G20 average, the U.S., the U.K., Spain, Germany and many other countries. Of course, that is not good enough. We have to continue to lead and do everything we can. That is why I am so proud that this House just adopted a budget with critical measures to help Canadians in every corner of this country with affordability, because we are not going to fix the problem of global inflation by slashing support to the most vulnerable.

After passing the budget, this House has important work to do over the next two weeks.

It will start this evening as we resume debate on Bill C-35, on early learning and child care, at report stage. Once that debate is done, we will resume debate on Bill C-33, on railway safety. Tomorrow, we will debate Bill C-41, on humanitarian aid. On Monday at noon, we will begin second reading debate of Bill C-48 concerning bail reform, and then we will go to Bill C-35 at third reading after question period. On Tuesday we will call Bill S-8, on sanctions, at report stage and third reading.

On top of this, priority will be given to Bill C-22, the disability benefit, and Bill C-40 regarding miscarriage of justice reviews, as well as our proposal to implement changes to the Standing Orders, which were tabled earlier today, to render provisions with respect to hybrid Parliament permanent in this House.

Furthermore, I have a unanimous consent motion that I would like to propose in relation to the debate tomorrow.

I move:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, in relation to Bill C-41, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts:

(a) the amendment in Clause 1 adopted by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which reads as follows:

“(a) by adding after line 26 on page 1 the following:

(4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to a person who carries out any of the acts referred to in those subsections for the sole purpose of carrying out humanitarian assistance activities conducted under the auspices of impartial humanitarian organizations in accordance with international law while using reasonable efforts to minimize any benefit to terrorist groups.

“(b) by deleting lines 15 to 19 on page 2.”

be deemed within the principle of the bill; and

(b) when the bill is taken up at report stage:

(i) it be deemed concurred in, as amended, on division, after which the bill shall be immediately ordered for consideration at the third reading stage,

(ii) not more than one sitting day or five hours of debate, whichever is the shortest, shall be allotted for consideration at the third reading stage,

(iii) five minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders that day, at the conclusion of the five hours allocated for the debate, or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith without further debate or amendment, provided that, if a recorded division is requested, it shall be deferred pursuant to order made Thursday, June 23, 2022.

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

Thank you. I'm sorry. My time is so limited.

Senator Andreychuk, in your opening comments, you talked about inadmissibility and that sanctions need to be coordinated. Bill S-8 was a bill that addressed that.

Can you comment on the gaps that linger? Does that address most of them or not? Answer very briefly.

[Perla Abou-Jaoudé]

We would definitely encourage it. I'm sorry, I'm not sure where it is in the project, but we definitely encourage that there is a judicial review possible, because it is more than important. The agency has a lot of discretion. Bill S-8 also gave them even more power. We don't have access to judicial review, so we think a judicial review is really important to be able to catch the cases that fall through the cracks.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

It's Bill S-8. I'm sorry about that.

I think that's it, Mr. Chair. I don't have any other questions.

Thank you.

[Richard St Marseille]

For immigration, it's Bill S-8, but yes.

[Richard St Marseille]

Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With respect to the immigration consequences of sanctions, the objective is clear: it's to prevent inadmissible people from travelling to Canada in the first place, and if they do arrive in Canada, to effect their removal.

We have evidence that the Magnitsky sanctions approach, which is slightly different from what existed for multilateral sanctions prior to the Magnitsky act, has been quite effective. All identified occurrences of sanctioned individuals have been stopped abroad through the refusal of visas. We don't have any recorded incidents of anyone arriving in Canada requiring removal, which was the objective of the Magnitsky approach. That's why, in Bill S-8, the government is proposing to align the remaining sanctions provisions with how they're handled in the Magnitsky act.

[Richard St Marseille, Director General, Immigration Policy and External Review, Canada Border Services Agency]

Thanks for your question. I can speak to that from the immigration perspective in particular.

From an immigration perspective, as the committee would know, we were just here a couple of weeks ago on Bill S-8. There is a legislative gap on the inadmissibility side of the sanctions provision. Sanctions issued for breach of peace and international security do not trigger inadmissibility today. If Bill S-8 were to receive royal assent, it would trigger inadmissibility. Similarly with respect to entities, that's also a gap that would be closed if Bill S-8 received royal assent, which aligns with a recommendation from Parliament in a 2017 report.

If I may just take a moment to address the interdepartmental coordination aspect, from an immigration perspective, as found in IRPA, the policy responsibility for inadmissibility due to sanctions rests with the Minister of Public Safety. It's the CBSA that will do interdepartmental coordination with GAC. We consult on the development of the regulations, and then we ensure that our systems with the immigration department are updated to ensure that lookouts are entered for people who are inadmissible so that we are all able to effectively enforce those provisions on the immigration side.

Foreign Affairs and International Development

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 18th report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development in relation to 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.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Garnett Genuis]

Colleagues, we're resuming in public.

I don't know that I said this in the confusion at the end, but I do want to say thank you to the officials for their testimony. I'm very pleased that we were able to get through Bill S-8 so quickly.

I think there's a desire now for the committee to have some discussion on other matters.

I see that Ms. McPherson has her hand raised.

Go ahead, Ms. McPherson. You now have the floor.

[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?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you very much.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of our witnesses for having been here, for their testimony, and for answering all the questions posed by the members.

Thank you, Mr. Bellissimo, Mr. Kolga, Ms. Middlemiss, Mr. Michalchyshyn, Mr. Zakydalsky and Mr. Daoud.

We're very grateful indeed.

Is it the will of the committee to adjourn?

(Motion agreed to)

I will just remind everyone that Tuesday is clause-by-clause for Bill S-8.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

I'm going to cede the rest of my time to my colleague, Mr. Hoback.

Before I do, I'm going to make a statement that I'm wrestling in terms of the balancing of security and safety concerns with some of the legitimate concerns that we've heard today.

We heard in the testimony from the senator this morning that speed and urgency were behind pushing forward Bill S-8, and that's why it was introduced in the Senate. However, I have to ask myself why, given it's been a year since that process started, we are now faced with it. I feel a sense of urgency for the situation in Ukraine, but I will acknowledge some of the concerns that I've heard from other parties.

Go ahead, Mr. Hoback.

[Lisa Middlemiss]

The sanctions could be included. Bill S‑8 covers all types of sanctions against a country, even economic sanctions.

[Marcus Kolga]

Yes, I believe the government could engage more closely with human rights organizations and civil society groups that are tracking human rights violations around the world, and work internationally to harmonize our sanctions with our allies, some of whom have close relationships with those civil society organizations. These people know best who should be targeted by those sanctions, so, again, closer coordination would be greatly welcomed.

I think that specific amendments.... This point doesn't speak necessarily to BillS-8 but to our broader sanctions regime...but ensuring some form of transparency and accountability....

In the United States, for example, the U.S. sanctions legislation, their Global Magnitsky Act, requires the U.S. government, the executive, to produce an annual report to demonstrate how U.S. sanctions have been used, who they've been targeting and why they've been targeting specific individuals and entities.

I think this is something that would be extremely useful in Canada as well, to help guide our sanctions and to make them more efficient in the long run.

[Abdulla Daoud]

As far as expediting how we put people on the sanctions list, I don't think that's really the purpose of this bill.

In terms of how it's being done now, if you refer to Mr. Bellissimo's brief, he pointed out from security experts that Canada has a pretty big lag when it comes to our sanctions regime. For example, we've kept countries longer on the sanctions list when our partners and our allies had taken them off. The examples were Liberia and Eritrea. If, for example, we were to pass this and cast this big, wide net in terms of economic sanctions, individuals from those countries, who have had some sort of financial connection to those countries because of the way they operate, would have been deemed inadmissible.

Basing our entire Bill S-8 legislation on a sanctions regime that is not quick to act and, from your own recommendations of 2017, needs a lot of improvement, is a dangerous road to go down.

I would refer back to our recommendations. They are very minor fixes that would still achieve and ensure what my colleagues here are also worried about in terms of individuals who are moving around assets, who should be labelled and targeted. We work in collaboration with our international partners, so those individuals would probably be identified more by our allies than by us first, given how we operate. We would still be able to use those lists, because we work in concert, which is in the legislation currently under IRPA with our international partners. Even if this is the case, we would still be able to target these individuals.

Lastly, I believe that, in the Senate debates we saw when this was being discussed, the CBSA said that 25 individuals they've identified have applied to come to Canada. There were 25 who have tried, and all 25 were rejected. There is a case here that our current inadmissibility process would cover them.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

You said earlier that some of our allies are imposing sanctions on individuals who don't face sanctions in Canada.

Would Bill S‑8 change that? Does Canada have to follow in the footsteps of allies when it comes to sanctions imposed on certain individuals, or should we retain the independent analysis process we currently have?

My question is for Mr. Daoud and Ms. Middlemiss.

[Lisa Middlemiss]

We're trying to define the word “sanction” so that we can understand exactly what we're talking about. With respect to the Special Economic Measures Act, Bill S‑8 proposes to expand the notion of sanctions to four types of sanctions: economic sanctions, sanctions for international peace or human rights violations, and sanctions against corruption. Those who are already subject to sanctions for human rights violations are inadmissible to Canada.

It's important that the types of sanctions be defined. I agree with my colleagues Mr. Daoud and Mr. Bellissimo that sanctions need to be kept in the context of human rights violations. You have to understand that there are different types of sanctions. Economic sanctions are sometimes intended to force a country to change its behaviour. It could also be an innocent person in Canada who is opposed to the regime. They may have had their refugee claim accepted, but their name remains on a list of individuals subject to sanctions. In that case, their application for permanent residence can't be processed.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all of the witnesses for their testimony.

I'm going to begin with the Ukrainian Canadian Congress.

You've heard the testimony from all the witnesses. As heard from the previous panel, Bill S-8 went through the legislative process in the Senate almost a year ago. I'm going to ask you to comment on the speed, the urgency and the concerns that have been raised in the testimony from witnesses you've heard, and I assume also at the Senate. The Senate made its decision. That is also now what this committee is weighing.

Can you comment on the urgency of this situation? A driver here was the illegal invasion of Russia into Ukraine. The goals of this legislation are something that we all support around the table. Can you help us with our deliberations?

[Abdulla Daoud, Executive Director, The Refugee Centre]

Good afternoon, everyone.

I am Abdulla Daoud, executive director of the Refugee Centre, which is based in Montreal.

Our organization is rooted in the newcomer community, providing a variety of services, including the only full-service refugee legal clinic in Montreal. So far this year, we have assisted over 9,000 refugees and refugee claimants. I would like to thank this committee for giving us the opportunity to address this critical issue today.

First, we applaud the government's effort to restrict bad actors, such as Russian oligarchs, from entering the country, as we have witnessed first-hand accounts at The Refugee Centre from Ukrainian refugees of the brutality of the Russian regime. It is crucial for the government to maintain a balance between protecting national security and upholding our democracy, including the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals impacted by legislation such as Bill S-8. This bill goes beyond Russian oligarchs and introduces potential dangers and adverse consequences to unintended individuals or families. We believe changes to the bill must be made.

One of the most concerning aspects of Bill S-8 is that it currently decouples the term “sanctions” from violations of human or international rights, thus creating a high level of ambiguity in relation to how sanctions would be applied in regard to admissibility.

Bill S-8 further connects sanctions to the entire section 4 of SEMA, such as economic measures imposed against foreign states. This effectively places the burden of economic sanctions solely on individual applicants due to the actions of a foreign government. For example, a Venezuelan foreign national who has invested their money into the state, which is typical of state enterprises such as Venezuela, could be held to account or deemed inadmissible in Canada. This is why the most important solution we are proposing is to properly define the word “sanctions”, specifically in regard to Bill S-8's amendments in proposed new subsection 35.1(1) of IRPA.

We believe it should be worded as “a foreign national is inadmissible for sanctions on grounds of violating human or international rights”. This rejoins the terms with violating human or international rights, avoiding any misuse or ambiguity in relation to broad economic sanctions that individuals cannot be held accountable for.

Another issue is that Bill S-8's current language places a disproportionate burden on already vulnerable groups. In order to remove themselves from a sanctions list, protected persons would need to seek out and endure a convoluted and complex legal procedure through Global Affairs Canada. This list has a historical precedent of infrequent updates and is often misaligned with the actions of our international partners. Without specific provisions tailored to address the unique circumstances of these individuals, legislation may inadvertently jeopardize their safety and well-being. Therefore, we propose to amend Bill S-8 to indicate that any refugee claimant who has been found to be a protected person within Canada be immediately delisted from the sanctions list.

Another concern arises from the potential misuse of power granted to the Ministry of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the CBSA under Bill S-8. There is a substantial risk of enforcement officials exceeding their authority and making arbitrary determinations related to inadmissibility with little to no accountability. This is due to the lack of a well-defined decision-making framework and removes access to appeals through the immigration division and ministerial relief.

There is no proper history of training in relation to removals based on sanctions within the CBSA, as the existing immigration and security infrastructure already addresses such concerns effectively within the immigration division. This is further reiterated by the director general of the CBSA's own testimony. When asked about the CBSA's experiences with sanctions, he stated, “However, with respect to sanctions inadmissibility cases to date, there have been no actual removals because the system has been quite effective in terms of stopping people from arriving in the first place.”

Our solution is to amend Bill S-8 in regard to the CBSA. In cases in which an individual is deemed inadmissible on the grounds of sanctions as defined by violating human or international rights, the CBSA should not have the unilateral authority to refuse entry or initiate removal proceedings against an individual without referring the case to the immigration division of the IRB.

Last, the proposed amendments in Bill S-8 may invite challenges under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The denial of access to certain immigration processes and the removal of the ability to appeal or seek ministerial relief may infringe upon the rights of affected individuals, opening the door to lengthy and costly court battles for procedural fairness.

In conclusion, by carefully considering the recommendations provided in our brief, we can achieve the dual goals of protecting national security and upholding the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals affected by our immigration laws.

Thank you.

[Lisa Middlemiss, Chair, Immigration Law Section, The Canadian Bar Association]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Members of the committee, my name is Lisa Middlemiss, and I am the current chair of the immigration law section of the Canadian Bar Association. The Canadian Bar Association is a national association of 37,000 members, including lawyers, judges, notaries, academics and law students, with a 120-year-old mandate to seek improvements in the law and the administration of justice.

Thank you for inviting the CBA to comment on Bill S-8.

Our section believes that the following loopholes should be addressed to avoid innocent people being caught by the broader language of Bill S-8.

The bill states that a foreign national is inadmissible for international sanctions imposed not only on a country but also on an entity or person. Broadening the scope of inadmissibility for international sanctions poses a risk by obscuring the delisting process.

There are disturbing examples of cases where individuals say they were wrongly sanctioned. Dr. Andrea Charron, a sanctions expert and director of the Centre for Defence and Security Studies at the University of Manitoba, gave the example of a differently spelled first or last name, even if it's only one letter off, which can lead to another person being sanctioned.

The consolidated Canadian Autonomous Sanctions List contains over 3,500 names of individuals or entities sanctioned under the Special Economic Measures Act and the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Leaders Act (also known as Sergei Magnitsky's Law), in addition to those sanctioned under the United Nations Act.

Take the recently reported case of a businessman who is listed on the Canadian consultant sanctions list for collaborating with the Putin regime, although he left Russia over 20 years ago and claims that he has no ties to Russia. His wife was working in another country and claims no ties to Russia either.

Given that the delisting application process is complex and lengthy, those who contend they are mistakenly sanctioned have little recourse. When Bill S-8 expands the scope of inadmissibility for sanctions, this is of particular concern.

Speaking of the lack of definitions for sanctions, it is essential to define the word “sanctions”, which the bill references in lieu of sanctions for human and international rights violations as presently referenced in subsection 35(1) of the IRPA.

Bill S-8 expands inadmissibility based on sanctions to include all orders and regulations made under section 4 of the SEMA. Section 4 references the Governor in Council making sanctions for a wide variety of circumstances, which in some cases—see subsection 4(1.1) of SEMA—may be premised merely on a decision, recommendation or resolution. Given the potential breadth for inadmissibility based on sanctions, it is really important to adopt definitions within the IRPA and the IRPR.

With respect to the missing definition of the term “entity”, Bill S‑8 determines sanctions-based inadmissibility for an entity, person or country; and yet, the term “entity” is not defined in it. The Special Economic Measures Act, for example, defines “entity” broadly in section 2 as “a body corporate, trust, partnership, fund, an unincorporated association or organization or a foreign state”.

It's hard to imagine what this concept of entity might not include. We recommend that Bill S‑8 implement a regulatory framework to ensure that the term “entity” is clearly defined in the context of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. In addition, the degree of ownership and participation in such an entity should be clarified to avoid unintended consequences on individuals seeking admission into Canada or wishing to stay in the country.

There is the gravity of consequences for inadmissible individuals. Delisting processes vary across international organizations. This complexifies and obscures the process.

We believe it's critical that individuals facing inadmissibility based on the ground of sanctions are independently and impartially assessed.

Finally, we would note that inland refugee claimants remain eligible to pursue their claims pursuant to Bill S-8. This is an exception that we endorse. However, we would recommend amending Bill S-8 to ensure that a finding inland or overseas that a person is a convention refugee or a person in need of protection results in immediate delisting. Otherwise, refugees' opportunities to apply for permanent residence and to integrate in this society will be jeopardized.

[Orest Zakydalsky, Senior Policy Advisor, Ukrainian Canadian Congress]

Thank you.

The first issue we see with Canada's sanctions regime is the methodology by which our government decides whether or not to sanction someone. We've never really understood or received an explanation for why, for example, someone is sanctioned in other jurisdictions but not in Canada, or how the decision is made to not sanction someone here if they've been sanctioned by our allies.

For example, on April 6, 2022, the U.K. sanctioned Viatcheslav Kantor, the largest shareholder of fertilizer company Acron, with, as the United Kingdom stated, “vital strategic significance for the Russian government”. On April 8, 2022, he was sanctioned by the European Union. He has not been sanctioned by Canada, and we don't know why.

The second problem we see is enforcement of existing sanctions. According to the RCMP, in June 2022, $123,031,000 had been frozen in Canada under Russia SEMA regulations. In December 2022, which is the most recent data I could locate, the RCMP reported $122,245,000 in frozen assets.

In the intervening seven months, between June and December 2022, Global Affairs Canada announced sanctions against 302 Russian individuals and 83 entities. Either none of those individuals or entities hold any assets in Canada, or we were simply unable to locate any of those assets.

At any rate, $122,000,000 is a comparative pittance compared to what are the likely actual Russian holdings in Canada. In fact, in just one known case, the Russian oligarch Igor Makarov moved out some $121,000,000 in assets just days before being sanctioned by Canada, in April 2022. The amount a single Russian oligarch was able to move out is essentially equal to the sum total of Russian assets that Canada has been able to freeze.

Makarov had been sanctioned by the U.S. treasury in 2018. The reason our government took no action against him until after he moved his assets out is unknown to us.

We understand that this committee intends to conduct a wider study of Canadian sanctions policy, which we welcome and for which we'd be honoured to provide more recommendations. In the meantime, the UCC reiterates its strong support for Bill S-8 and our strong support for ensuring that those sanctioned by Canada are not able to travel here. Human rights abusers and corrupt officials have no place in Canada.

Thank you.

[Ihor Michalchyshyn]

I wish we didn't have to be here so often, but today is day 441 of the Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine, so it is good to speak with you today.

With regard to this bill, Bill S-8, and the amendments on individuals sanctioned by Canada and by SEMA, we strongly support this legislation as drafted by the Ukrainian Canadian Congress. We believe that with the freezing of assets held in Canada, and hopefully soon the seizure of those assets, the inadmissibility of individuals listed under SEMA will be a key part of Canada's strong sanctions regime against foreign officials whose regimes, as we know and have heard, are engaged in gross human rights violations and in significant corruption activities against individuals who financially and politically support those regimes.

We believe that the proposed amendments to IRPA are a step, as you heard, in closing the statutory gaps in our legislation to harmonize SEMA with the immigration act and to assist in making Canadian sanctions more effective.

We call on the committee to adopt the bill quickly. For our community, it is part of the ongoing effort to significantly strengthen Canada's sanctions regime.

I will turn it over to my colleague to talk about two specific issues we believe can be addressed.

[Marcus Kolga, Senior Fellow, Macdonald-Laurier Institute, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and esteemed members of this committee, for inviting me to testify today on Bill S-8 and Canada's sanctions regime.

I had the privilege of leading the Canadian civil society campaign for Magnitsky legislation, during which time I had the honour of working with Senator Andreychuk, former justice minister Irwin Cotler, MP James Bezan and many of you here today.

That work also included co-operation with many of the leading post Cold War-era Russian human rights activists, such as Boris Nemtsov and Vladimir Kara-Murza, both of whom came to Ottawa to advocate for Magnitsky legislation. Boris Nemtsov was, of course, assassinated in February 2015 for his leadership and advocacy. Vladimir Kara-Murza was poisoned twice to within a hair of his life. Two weeks ago, he was sentenced to 25 years in prison for his criticism of the Putin regime and its barbaric invasion of Ukraine.

My activism and advocacy for Magnitsky sanctions have also attracted the attention of the Russian government and its morally corrupt enablers here in Canada. I’d like to take this moment to note the intimidation the member for Wellington—Halton Hills has endured for his leadership and advocacy against foreign authoritarians. His experience has finally forced a national spotlight onto the threat of transnational repression and the efforts of authoritarian regimes to silence Canadian advocates of human rights and democracy. For those of us who have long endured threats of violence, organized campaigns to discredit us and dehumanizing marginalization based on our ethnic backgrounds, we shudder and share the anxiety of our fellow Canadians who are victimized by foreign intimidation.

The application of sanctions is a painful consequence for the corrupt officials and oligarchs whose stolen assets are used to fund lavish lifestyles and pay for the protection of totalitarian leaders like Vladimir Putin. Their threats and intimidation against those who advocate for them are a good measure of their effectiveness. Over the past 15 months, since Russia invaded Ukraine, we've witnessed a rapid and welcome intensification of our application of sanctions on individuals and entities linked to the Putin regime. All Canadian parliamentarians deserve credit for their unanimous support of sanctions, which has made Canada a leader in holding the Putin regime to account. Sanctions have been imposed on leading Putin-aligned oligarchs who have assets in Canada, like Roman Abramovich. Mr. Abramovich’s Evraz owns five major steel processing plants in western Canada, worth billions of dollars.

Kremlin-controlled propaganda outlets that pollute our information environment and provide platforms for domestic far-left and far-right extremists, such as RT, Sputnik and Channel One, have been sanctioned and removed from our public airwaves.

However, some gaps remain. Bill S-8 helps address one of them: ensuring those on our sanctions lists are also denied entry into Canada. This is a very welcome amendment to IRPA and our overall sanctioning regime.

Another significant gap is one that pertains to Russian state media and its continued availability to Canada’s Russian diaspora community. Despite our sanctions on Russian state media, streaming devices and services, like those offered by Amazon and Google, are sold in Canada by Canadian companies and provide access to multiple Russian channels specifically sanctioned and banned by our government. These channels are Russia-1, Channel One, NTV, Russia-24 and the many other channels controlled by the All-Russia State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company, which is also on our sanctions list. Canadian far-left and far-right extremists continue to appear on the sanctioned Russian state media channel RT, where they legitimize Russian state narratives. If they receive any benefit, this may also represent a violation of Canadian sanctions laws.

Finally, the acquisition of services related to tourism in temporarily occupied Crimea contravenes Canadian sanctions legislation. A Canadian far-left, pro-Kremlin extremist recently boasted on social media that he met with Russian foreign ministry officials in Moscow and later travelled to Crimea on a tourist visa. While Canadians are free to travel as they wish, it does not mean they are free from the consequences of contravening our sanctions.

In conclusion, I strongly support the harmonization of IRPA with the Canadian Magnitsky law and SEMA.

Thank you so much, again, for inviting me to appear here today. I look forward to your questions.

[Mario Bellissimo, Lawyer, Certified Specialist, Bellissimo Law Group Professional Corporation, As an Individual]

Good morning.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the invitation.

In our brief submitted before the Senate last year, we made five recommendations, which we repeat here. We endorse the concerns highlighted by the CBA and The Refugee Centre. Why the recommendations? Context is always important.

The current law is potent. As the committee knows, the authority to render individuals inadmissible under IRPA for international and human rights sanctions has been in place for over 20 years. Of the thousands of people currently on the sanctions list, we cannot identify anyone who would currently be inadmissible under Canadian immigration law.

What's the harm in adding more sanctions? The bad actors should have no access to Canada. We agree. Yet it is much more complicated. IRPA's jurisdictional integrity, for one, is at stake. Why? Aligning all of subsection 4(1.1) of SEMA with IRPA introduces, to list just a few things, economic sanctions; where recommendations to sanction result in automatic inadmissibility; and where investigations into sanctions could be grounds for detention without legal context and without relief from third party adjudicators like the immigration division. That will now be repealed.

In short, the new law, make no mistake, is too broad. It can impact citizens, permanent residents and foreign nationals guilty of no wrongdoing. This is striking. Applicants and their spouses and children would have few options, if any, left under the IRPA. It would have a generational impact.

Recommendation one is the requirement for legislative clarity. We've heard a lot about it. The word “sanction” remains undefined, but it's also been divorced from “grounds of violating human or international rights”—it's now a stand-alone, undefined ground for inadmissibility—that currently exists in IRPA. Why? Is this not the harm we are targeting—bad actors in violation of human rights or international rights? Proposed section 35.1 must be connected to human or international rights violators. Key terms like “sanction” and “entity” must be defined in IRPA.

This is all very important, because such subject matter experts in the sanctions regime as Dr. Andrea Charron, and a prior Senate study, raised several acute issues. There are too many to recite here, but I'll mention a few about sanctions. These are the need for parliamentary oversight, better coherence and compliance, timely and independent redress avenues, accountability, transparency and other practical challenges.

For example, Canada continued to leave sanctions in place against foreign states like Liberia and Sierra Leone long after the United Nations lifted them, a legal purgatory under Bill S-8. This committee should address that regime—I understand that it's going to study it—before the passage of Bill S-8.

Put plainly, individuals' lives could be significantly altered by a law that potentially should not apply to them. Equally troubling is that it may not exclude some of the bad actors, because the law becomes immersed in legislative ambiguity and applicatory limitations, resulting in procedural and fairness concerns possibly rising to the level of constitutional issues.

Recommendation two is that legislative clarity is also required for the Citizenship Act and the Emergencies Act. That has not been discussed thus far. Canadians should not be at risk of losing their Canadian citizenship on a precarious legal foundation.

It's the same for recommendation three with respect to independence. IRPA cannot lose its jurisdictional integrity by being restricted in providing relief where justified in the confines of its own act. Ironically, in the sanctions regime there are legislated exemptions, but really, none remain for those involved in navigating IRPA.

Recommendation four underscores the need for overbreadth and excluding those with no personal wrongdoing or any connection to transgressions.

For recommendation five, we rely on David Matas's brief before the Senate. The granting of refugee status should result in immediate delisting. Access to refugee status should be uniform in and outside of Canada.

We propose calling David Matas and Dr. Charron to testify. It is critical that we maintain the jurisdictional independence of the IRPA and its harmonious intersection with other domestic and international legislation for the objects of the act and the clear intention of Parliament to be realized. To get there, Bill S-8 needs further study and amending.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

I call the meeting back to order.

It is now my great pleasure to welcome to this committee various witnesses who are here in relation to the consideration of Bill S-8.

As individuals online, we have Mr. Mario Bellissimo, a lawyer and certified specialist with Bellissimo Law Group Professional Corporation, and Mr. Marcus Kolga, senior fellow with the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. From the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, we have Mr. Ihor Michalchyshyn, chief executive officer, and Mr. Orest Zakydalsky, senior policy adviser. From the Canadian Bar Association, we have Ms. Lisa Middlemiss, chair of the immigration law section. From The Refugee Centre, we have Mr. Abdulla Daoud, the executive director.

I will now open it up to opening remarks from the various witnesses. Each witness will be provided five minutes. When you're very close and I want to indicate that you should be wrapping up your comments, I will hold this up. That applies not only to your opening remarks, when you get your five minutes, but also to when the members are asking you questions.

All that having been explained, I will now go to Mr. Bellissimo, who is joining us virtually.

Mr. Bellissimo, the floor is yours. You have five minutes.

[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—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Welcome back, everyone.

We will continue on with consideration of Bill S-8.

We're very fortunate that we have a number of officials with us. If it's okay with everyone, I will dispense with titles, but I will say that, from Canada Border Services Agency, we have Ms. Kelly Acton. We also have Mr. Brett Bush.

From the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, we have Ms. Saman Fradette and Mr. David Chan.

From the Department of Foreign Affairs, we have Mr. Stephen Burridge.

From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have Mr. Sébastien Aubertin-Giguère.

For this round, we have six questioners for five minutes each.

We start off with Mr. Epp.

You have the floor.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

It's important to point out that, certainly as it relates to proceedings for removals, including any other administrative proceedings, we allow for due process to take its course. There are important procedural rights that any individual who faces stark consequences, including removal and/or detention, has. What this bill will do is ensure there is due process prior to the invocation of the amendment under Bill S-8. That due process exists on the front end, under the analysis that is undertaken by Global Affairs Canada, and then on the back end, if the individual who has been listed under SEMA and is therefore inadmissible under IRPA.... They always have the option to seek judicial review before the Federal Court.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Thank you, Minister, for coming.

My question is that this piece of legislation, Bill S-8, combined with SEMA, combined with the Magnitsky act, kind of tightens the legislation to make it a criminal offence for contravening or failing to comply with sanctions, which in all three cases, I think, is a hybrid offence, allowing violators to be charged with either a summary conviction or an inadmissible offence.

I want to know if the department's stance would be to deport such a person if they're in Canada, or charge them. We also don't want Canada to be a safe haven, where you can go and try there, and if you don't get in, the worst case is you just go back. If they have contravened any of these acts, would that be, in your view as the public safety minister, something they should be charged for, or would it be the de facto...that they be sent back?

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

—from Mr. Genuis has been focused on anything but Bill S-8. Maybe there might be one or two on the record, but almost all of them have nothing to do with Bill S-8.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

We are now getting into debate.

Mr. Genuis, please bear in mind that we're trying to remain focused on Bill S-8. You have a minute and 54 seconds remaining.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

I don't see any relevance whatsoever, so I'll just remind you once again to remain within the ambit of Bill S-8.

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

I have a point of order. I'm trying to again understand how this relates to Bill S-8 and the new legislation.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In the debate at second reading of Bill S‑8, you commended the report published by this committee in 2017, entitled “An Effective and Coherent Framework for the Implementation of Canada's Sanctions Regimes: Honouring the Memory of Sergei Magnitsky and Going Further”. This report recommended amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act so that all individuals subject to a sanction under the Special Economic Measures Act are prohibited from entering Canada. You stated the following:

[...] 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.

You were the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. Why have you waited more than five years to put forward this bill? Why did you wait for the war in Ukraine until you finally acted on the recommendation the committee made in 2017?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I believe that's an important question.

As I mentioned to our colleague Mr. Zuberi, that word is not used in Bill S-8. That was a conscious decision, so that we don't in any way conflate or confuse the analysis, which is focused principally on the individual, first and foremost, who is before Global Affairs for analysis under SEMA.

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

On a point of order, Chair, again, Bill S-8 relates to amendments around sanctions. I am not sure how this will help us to understand legislation on sanctions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Zuberi.

Again, I just want to remind all the members to remain focused on Bill S-8 and to make their questions relevant to the bill at hand.

Go ahead, Mr. Genuis.

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

On a point of order, I would go back to my first point of order in terms of the relevance to Bill S-8. I'm trying to understand how this will help our committee study with respect to Bill S-8. I don't yet see that.

I'm not sure, Mr. Chair, if the questions should be more focused around Bill S-8 or if we're just talking about what's in the news today.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I'm quite content to answer it. Again, I appreciate why you're asking these questions, despite the fact that we are here principally to talk about Bill S-8.

Of course I have confidence in CSIS. These are individuals who work to protect our national security every day.

I also would point out that your question used language like “blaming”. The only people I think we need to be united in holding accountable are the hostile actors who are attempting to undermine our democratic institutions.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Chair, I think the minister's confidence or lack thereof in CSIS is critically important, given that part of Bill S-8 is responding to assessments that are made by our security agencies.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair, on relevance.

Given that our stated agenda for this meeting is the consideration of Bill S-8, I would like you to consider that. Thank you.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

With regard to Bill S-8, the legal experts and the refugee sector have said that there need to be amendments to this bill. They have called for that.

Mr. Bergeron referred to the use of the word “sanctions”. We have heard from the Bellissimo Law Group and The Refugee Centre, and they've both raised concerns about the lack of clarity with regard to language on sanctions in this bill. Of course, we have a study that will be looking at this.

Why is it so vague? How do we make sure it's better? Would you be willing to accept amendments to that?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for being here today and answering our questions on Bill S-8. I'm very grateful to you for taking on sanctions. I think it's very important for us to strengthen our sanctions regime.

As Mr. Bergeron mentioned, we are going to be undertaking a study that I brought forward for us to look at. One of my big concerns with our sanctions regime, of course, is the enforcement of the sanctions regime, because it's very easy to put people's names on a list, but it's not always very easy to make sure that those sanctions are being enforced.

With regard to Bill S-8, though, I have a few questions.

Minister, you heard me being a bit critical before, when the sector or experts were not consulted. We might get to Bill C-41 later on today.

I have something that I'd like to ask for, for my birthday, Mr. Minister.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Bill S‑8 must protect the rights of refugees. It must protect the most vulnerable individuals. This bill has a specific purpose; it is in line with the Special Economic Measures Act, or SEMA. I hope you have confidence in the officials who analyze an individual's case before they are listed under the SEMA.

In short, I think there are checks and balances in place, parameters to examine all the circumstances—including any issues relating to human rights and refugee rights—in the analysis before the SEMA process is concluded.

That is one of the ways we can protect human rights and ensure that this bill is in line with the SEMA.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

The Canadian Bar Association has proposed that amendments be made to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in Bill S‑8, to establish “a distinct ground of inadmissibility based on sanctions, namely sanctions imposed on an 'entity, person or country'”. It also recommends removing the references to “country” since the term is too broad. This is probably related to the Refugee Centre's concern.

What are your thoughts on this recommendation from the Canadian Bar Association?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Once again, I will call upon my officials for an exact and technical analysis. In practical terms, though, the analysis under the Special Economic Measures Act provides for a review of matters related to corruption or other illicit activities pursuant to international conventions. If there is evidence that meets the test criteria, the provisions of the Special Economic Measures Act apply to that person.

The goal of Bill S‑8 is to coordinate obligations under the Special Economic Measures Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in order to make that individual inadmissible.

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

Canada has been a steadfast ally with Ukraine, as have been many other countries. You touched upon how this legislation, in terms of the sanctions regime, has actually helped our efforts when it comes to Ukraine.

Do you want to elaborate a bit upon that, in the 45 seconds that remain, about how Bill S-8 will further our solidarity with Ukraine and check Russia's aggression?

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

This legislation touches individuals. It also touches entities in terms of the sanctions regime. It touches not only individuals but also entities.

Is there any impact on the shareholders of entities that might be sanctioned, when it comes to Bill S-8 or the broader legislation?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I will defer to officials who have undertaken an analysis of exactly what kind of legislative or statutory schemes are in place among our democratic allies, but I believe that Bill S-8 will generally align with the approaches that have been taken by like-minded countries.

The point is to make sure there is no disconnect, that if individuals have been named under SEMA, because they are facilitating the transgression of human rights or are in some way supporting financially or otherwise the acts of an authoritarian regime, for example, Russia, as it continues its illegal incursion and war in Ukraine, those individuals then become inadmissible to Canada by operation of the IRPA statute.

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

Canada works in partnership with many countries, the Five Eyes, the G7 and other countries. Could you elaborate a bit on how Bill S-8 contributes to what other countries are doing in this domain? Can you speak about how other countries are addressing the issue that Bill S-8 puts forth, and how that fits in with the scheme of things?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here today, Mr. Minister.

Also, thank you to your staff and team for being here.

I'll pick up on the line that was really touched upon by my colleague opposite.

First off, before doing so, I'd like to acknowledge that I respect immensely the work that you and other ministers are doing to protect Canada from foreign interference and to protect our democracy.

That being said, I'd like to lean into the questions around foreign interference and ask how Bill S-8, in particular, will help to protect our country from foreign interference.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Zuberi.

I'd like to remind every member that we should try to focus our questions on the issue at hand, which is Bill S-8.

Mr. Genuis, we did stop the clock. You still have a minute and 12 seconds remaining.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

We are here on Bill S-8 today. I just want to make sure that we're getting evidence that relates to Bill S-8 at this committee, so that we can advance our understanding and even propose amendments around the legislation. I'm just trying to listen for how this actually pertains to Bill S-8 specifically. I would ask the members, through you, to focus their questions on Bill S-8.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Thank you very much for that, Mr. Chair, and for the introductions of the officials joining me.

Hello, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

Thank you for inviting me to speak about the objectives of Bill S‑8.

Bad actors will never find refuge in Canada. The amendments proposed in Bill S-8 will close the current gaps in our sanctions regime, to be perfectly clear, by harmonizing the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Special Economic Measures Act.

The proposed amendments are clear and will ensure that all foreign nationals subject to any sanctions under the Special Economic Measures Act, or what we refer to as SEMA, will also be inadmissible to Canada pursuant to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Bill S-8 will modernize Canada's sanctions inadmissibility framework. From a border integrity perspective, the amendments proposed by Bill S-8 are the best way to ensure that a sanctioned person would be deemed inadmissible to Canada.

Since February 24, 2022, when Russia launched its brutal war against Ukraine through its latest illegal incursion, the Government of Canada has responded with numerous packages of new sanctions targeting many Russian and Belarusian individuals and entities. As of March 1, over 1,500 individuals had been sanctioned under SEMA in relation to this conflict. This is in addition to the more than 1,000 other foreign nationals sanctioned under SEMA tied to other countries or regimes, such as Myanmar, Syria and, most recently, Iran, following the so-called morality police's brutal human rights violations—just to name a few. While some of these individuals are currently inadmissible to Canada, the majority are not.

If a sanctioned foreign national arrives at the Canadian border, Bill S‑8 will guarantee that a CBSA official can immediately deny entry and remove the person from Canada.

Passing the legislation would also mean that the roughly 2,500 individuals currently sanctioned under SEMA for grounds not linked to IRPA would be inadmissible to Canada. As the IRPA is currently written, its inadmissibility provisions do not align with the basis for imposing the majority of SEMA sanctions issued against Russia, and that is precisely what Bill S-8 seeks to remedy.

These amendments will apply beyond the current situation in Russia and Iran. The proposed amendments will further facilitate the sanctions against terrorist groups and non-state entities, such as al-Qaida and ISIL.

Make no mistake. The proposed amendments will also strengthen Canada's ability to identify and stop sanctioned foreign nationals before they travel to Canada.

Simply put, there are currently no parallel existing grounds of inadmissibility, which is why the legislative amendments proposed in Bill S-8 are so crucial. They will ensure that the Government of Canada's sanctions framework remains cohesive, enforceable and responsive.

The bill will provide Canada with much-needed authorities to hold bad actors to account and to contribute to concerted action with our international allies. It will provide a clear and strong message that the Government of Canada's comprehensive sanctions framework has meaningful consequences, not only from an economic perspective but from an immigration and access to Canada perspective as well.

Thank you for your time, Mr. Chair.

I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

On a less happy note, if I may, I would like to ask all members to wait until I recognize them by name before they speak—unless it's Heather, of course. She has all rights today. I remind you that all comments should be made through the chair.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, February 13, 2023, the committee commences its 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.

Concerning the drafting of any amendments that may be proposed by the members, I would like to highlight and remind everyone that members should contact Alexandra Schorah, the legislative counsel, as soon as possible should they intend to introduce any amendments.

Now, it's my great honour to welcome the sponsor of this bill to our committee. It's a great honour to have the Honourable Minister Marco Mendicino here with us. We very much look forward to his opening comments.

However, I first want to thank all the officials accompanying him today. From Canada Border Services Agency, we have Ms. Kelly Acton, vice-president, strategic policy branch, and Mr. Brett Bush, executive director, immigration and asylum policy innovation branch. From the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, we have Ms. Saman Fradette, director of migration control and horizontal policy division, and Mr. David Chan, acting director, asylum policy, performance and governance division. From the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, we have Mr. Stephen Burridge, director of sanctions, policy and operations coordination. Finally, from the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have Mr. Sébastien Aubertin-Giguère, assistant deputy minister, national and cybersecurity branch.

All of that being out of the way, thank you for appearing here today, Minister. For your opening remarks, you have five minutes.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as much as it was unexpected this morning to be dealing with this rather than the Order Paper items and the work of the government, I think it is a very important debate. I would like to see us have a take-note debate in an evening when we could talk a lot more about the issues that we are all talking about.

I believe all of us stand against this terrible regime, and stand with the Iranian community who are fighting for their freedom, especially the protesting women and students in Iran. The Government of Canada has designated the Iranian regime as a regime that has engaged in terrorism, as well as systemic and gross human rights violations. We hear about it every day on the news, the number of people who are murdered senselessly for nothing more than wanting to stand up for their freedom and the freedom of the Iranian people.

As a result, senior officials, including those from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its top leaders, are now inadmissible to Canada under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. There is an important distinction here, from the blanket covering of everyone. The government is targeting all senior officials with decision-making power, not innocent Iranians, as one of my colleagues was referring to earlier today, many of whom are actually the victims of this horrific regime.

It is an important and effective measure. We do not want former Iranian IRGC and military leaders to be able to claim asylum in our country. The designation the government has put on the Islamic Republic of Iran as a regime means that all senior officials in the country are inadmissible. This includes heads of state, military leaders, intelligence officials, senior public servants, diplomats and members of the judiciary.

To further strengthen our ability to hold Iran accountable, last May the government tabled Bill S-8 in the Senate to make changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. This legislation addresses an important gap in our framework to hold foreign governments accountable, whether we are talking about Iran or interference from China or Russia. I believe there are many countries that are looking to find ways to intimidate Canadians and Canadian parliamentarians, and to interfere in a variety of ways, which is why we are having many discussions here in the Government of Canada.

The amendments placed expand the scope for inadmissibility to Canada based on sanctions imposed on a country, entity or person. Right now, individuals, organizations, state entities and businesses named or listed in Canada's economic sanctions are not automatically inadmissible to Canada. Bill S-8 is going to fix that and tighten up the loophole that is there. It means that corrupt officials may still be eligible for a travel visa, even if they are sanctioned under the current laws.

Bill S-8 would fix this legislative oversight and empower Canadian officials to refuse visas to any Iranian regime leader, as well as any other individuals and groups sanctioned in the future. Again, this is another step forward to try to put down the kind of conditions that we want to see against Iran, and to try to help bring down the regime, ultimately, which I believe should be everybody's goal.

Bill S-8 was reported to the House in October of last year, but it is not yet before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. I do hope, especially given today's debate, that Bill S-8 gets there sooner rather than later, so that we could strengthen all the tools we have to try to help defeat the mullahs who are currently causing such terror throughout Iran and elsewhere. We know that the Iranian mullahs are helping to provide drones to Russia to continue to help with the destruction in Ukraine. They continue to murder their own people in a very clear way.

I want to share with the House that last year I had an opportunity, together with several of my colleagues from other parties, to attend a meeting with representatives of the NCRI to talk about democracy and their quest for freedom for the Iranian people.

For over 40 years, the NCRI has been standing and protesting against this brutal regime. Their dream, and the dream of most Iranians, is to have a free and democratic secular Iran. That is what people want. That is what NCRI wants. That is what the United States wants. Two weeks ago, I believe, Congress passed the motion for House Resolution 100, which was endorsed by hundreds of congressmen and senators, supporting the 10-point plan put forward by NCRI. Again, the goal is to have a free and democratic Iran. That is what we all want to see, and an end to the brutality.

We are so fortunate to live in this wonderful country of ours and to have the freedom to come and go as we please, to say the things that need to be said, to have our freedom of speech and freedom of dress, all those things we take for granted. That is what the Iranian people are fighting for now. I think it is critically important that we, together, as parliamentarians of all stripes, continue to be their voice to continue to keep that pressure on Iran so that, ultimately, there will be many parties to choose from, whether it is NCRI or others that get together. It will be up to the Iranian people, who do not want to have a dictatorship and who want the freedom that we have. I hear that so many times: The Iranian people want what we have, that freedom of choice and the freedom to vote for whomever they want.

Currently, I am working on a letter to send out to parliamentarians to try to keep up the pressure, as many Canadians are protesting at rallies every weekend. I think it is important, if there is going to be a collapse of this regime, for all of us to do whatever we can, so I have been putting together a communication. I will summarize a bit of it, because it will go to all 338 members. It is calling for support for the Iranian people in their quest for a secular and democratic republic. It talks about the past six months and the terrible things that have happened. It acknowledges that we stand in solidarity with the people of Iran in their desire for a secular and democratic republic in which no individual, regardless of religious beliefs or birthright, has any privileges over others. Through their slogans, which we have heard many nights on the nightly news, the Iranian people have made it clear that they reject all forms of dictatorship, be it in the form of the deposed shah or the current theocratic regime, and reject any association with any of the others.

The goal here, I think for all of us, is to see a free and democratic Iran. We are looking today, in this discussion, for other ways to strengthen sanctions. Putting the IRGC on the terrorist list, yes, I support that. I am known to support that it should be listed as a terrorist organization, but I think we need to do more than that. We need to have more voices out there supporting and fighting for a free and democratic Iran. That has to be the goal, and whatever all of us can do as parliamentarians to advance that, whether it is in our own communications to each other or out to the community, I think is very important.

I am thankful for the opportunity to participate in this important debate today, and I am happy to take some questions.

Foreign Affairs

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, our government is committed to holding Iran accountable for its shameless disregard for human rights and the regime's support for terrorism.

I would like to emphasize the robust measures that Canada has in place against Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. These measures were undertaken in response to recent incidents, as well as Iran's long-term systemic human rights violations and ongoing behaviour that destabilizes regional security.

Canada has designated the Islamic Republic of Iran under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or IRPA, for the regime's engagement in terrorism and continuous and gross human rights violations. As a result, tens of thousands of prominent Iranian government officials, including IRGC senior officials, are now permanently inadmissible to Canada. In addition to being banned from entering Canada, current and former senior officials who are presently in the country may be investigated and deported.

Furthermore, Canada has imposed vigorous sanctions against the Iranian regime and its leadership under the Special Economic Measures Act, which explicitly targets the IRGC and several sub-organizations. These measures ensure that all of designated individuals' assets in Canada are effectively frozen.

Once Bill S-8, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, becomes law, it would also align IRPA with the SEMA to ensure that all foreign nationals subject to sanctions will also be inadmissible to Canada.

Yesterday, the House unanimously voted to send Bill S-8 to committee, and I trust that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development will review this bill expeditiously.

Additionally, Canada lists Iran as a state supporter of terrorism under the State Immunity Act. The listing, together with the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, allows victims to bring civil actions against Iran for losses or damages relating to terrorism.

The Criminal Code also sets out a terrorist listing regime to help prevent the use of Canada's financial system to further terrorist activity and to assist in the investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences. Several of Iran's key proxy actors are captured by this scheme.

For example, Canada has listed the IRGC Qods Force as a terrorist entity since 2012. It is a group recognized as responsible for terrorist operations and providing arms, funding and training to other terrorist groups.

The Government of Canada has also listed terrorist entities that have benefited from Qods Force patronage, including Hizballah, Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Taliban, and three Iran-backed regional militias that were added to the Criminal Code in 2019.

We are committed to holding the Iranian regime accountable for their crimes, human rights violations and threats against regional peace and security.

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to an order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the second reading stage of Bill S-8.

The House resumed from February 10 consideration of the motion 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.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will continue on a different track. Within Bill S-8 there are provisions for persons to be able to challenge being put on a sanctions list, but they are not allowed to appeal being found inadmissible to Canada if they happen to be on a sanctions list.

During the debate on the sanctions for the victims and the Sergei Magnitsky act, there was a provision put in to ensure that a person who was to be listed would have the right to redress and could actually challenge the fact that they had been put on the list.

In this piece of legislation, one of the provisions specifically says that one cannot appeal the fact that one has been found inadmissible, because the idea is that the process has already taken place in the sanctions regime. I wonder if the member would comment on how there would be no right of appeal if one is found inadmissible to Canada under IRPA, which would be expanded to all those who find themselves on one of the sanctions lists that Canada keeps, and that they would need to seek redress for sanctions but not for inadmissibility.

Does he see this as a problem or as an opportunity to expedite the deportation of individuals who find themselves in Canada unlawfully?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, we are here today to talk about Bill S-8.

For the benefit of my constituents who may be interested in following this, this is an act that started its life in the other place last spring, a month or so before Parliament rose for the summer. We are talking about 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. Last year the senators recognized a gap in the law when it comes to the imposition of sanctions against other countries, organizations or individuals for breaches of international peace and security, as well as human rights violations.

The senators fast-tracked this legislation. It is not contentious; I believe that it has support from all parties in this House. However, unfortunately, it has been parked in the House of Commons since early fall; here we are finally, in February, debating it. What was the delay? What is the holdup? This needs to be done.

Bill S-8 was introduced around the time of Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, an unjustified and unjust war, as well as a blatant violation of international law. The timing of this legislation is not coincidental. It is in response to the illegal invasion by Russia of our friends in Ukraine. The legislation is long overdue.

What does it do? Canada, on the advice of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, can and does impose sanctions against certain states or individuals. This is pursuant to two Canadian laws: the Special Economic Measures Act and the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, better known as the Magnitsky law.

Under the Special Economic Measures Act, Canada can impose sanctions for grave breaches of international peace, gross and systemic human rights violations, or actions of corruption. Under the Magnitsky law, Canada can impose sanctions on foreign nationals responsible for, or complicit in, extrajudicial killings, torture or gross human rights violations.

I think some background on the Magnitsky act would be useful. There was an American investor by the name of Bill Browder who worked and invested in Russia's economy after the end of the Cold War and after Russia opened up its economy to the world. Mr. Browder made a lot of money, and this drew the attention of the Russian government, particularly President Vladimir Putin. Mr. Browder's Russian lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky, also drew the attention and the ire of the Russian authorities. Eventually, Mr. Magnitsky died in a Russian prison, clearly the victim of an extrajudicial killing, torture and a gross violation of human rights, to pick up on the language of the Magnitsky law.

Mr. Browder escaped Russia, and he used his influence to convince first the United States and then other countries, including Canada, to adopt what has become known as Magnitsky's law. This law, different of course and unique in each country, gives the government of said country the right and ability to impose financial sanctions against foreign nationals responsible for or complicit in such horrific actions. That is what the Magnitsky act does.

We had Mr. Browder appear before this Parliament's Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development on February 10, 2022. One should note the timing. This was exactly two weeks before Putin's Russia invaded Ukraine. We did not know that was going to happen, although there was every indication that Putin would invade Ukraine. He had done it before, in 2014, shortly after Russia hosted the Winter Olympics in nearby Sochi. At that time, Putin waved goodbye to the world and then ordered his tanks into the Crimean Peninsula. Sadly, the world looked the other way.

Seven years later, in 2022, Putin was again flexing his muscles. Again, he was hoping and expecting that the world would be looking the other way. That was the context when Mr. Browder was giving his testimony in front of the committee.

Here is a sample quote from his testimony:

As we look forward to what to do about this situation, my prescription is to make a list of the 50 biggest oligarchs who look after Putin's money. There's no mystery as to who these people are...and we hit these people with Magnitsky sanctions.

We start with five before any invasion to show Putin we're serious. We then tell him that he has 10 days to pull back from the border or we hit him with another five. If he invades, we go after the rest of the 40. I believe this would stop Putin in his tracks and he wouldn't invade Ukraine.

Three months later, on May 17, 2022, Mr. Browder appeared before another committee, the public safety committee, as part of its Russia study. Again, members can note the timing. This meeting was taking place a few months after Putin invaded Ukraine. At that meeting, this question, or challenge, was put to Mr. Browder: “Clearly, sir, something went wrong. Either the [Canadian] government didn't take your advice or you underestimated Putin's propensity for recklessness.”

This was part of Mr. Browder's answer:

[Putin] had looked at our conduct, and when I say “our”, I mean Canada, the United States, the EU and the U.K. He looked at our conduct after the invasion of Georgia—nothing; after the illegal annexation of Crimea—effectively nothing; after MH17 was shot down—nothing; and, after the Salisbury poisonings—nothing. He was of the opinion that we weren't going to do anything if he invaded Ukraine.

Historians will debate whether we and our allies acted soon enough, used our sanctioning tools aggressively enough or did everything in our power to convince Putin to back off. Maybe we could have done more, and with the benefit of hindsight we probably could have done more and should have done more, but I want to be clear that it is not as if we are doing nothing.

After the illegal annexation of the Crimean peninsula in 2014, Canada, using the existing Special Economic Measures Act, imposed sanctions against more than 1,000 individuals and 241 entities linked to ongoing violations of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. Our Magnitsky Law, parenthetically, came into force some time later, in 2017.

Could we have done more to help our Ukrainian friends? Probably, but today we are doing the right thing. It is a small thing, but it is the right thing. With Bill S-8, we are amending three other acts and expanding certain regulations, all pertaining to how we deal with refugees, and in particular refugees who, when they present themselves at our border, are discovered to be subject to sanctions under one or another of our sanction laws.

The Minister of Public Safety put it this way: “Banning close associates and key supporters of Putin's regime, including those responsible for this unprovoked aggression from entering our country is one of the many ways in which we're holding Russia accountable for its crimes.” We can argue about the veracity of the statement that Canada acted in “many ways” to hold Russia accountable. That is a debate for another day.

I would wrap it up with the following comment. I and all members of Parliament, I believe, have been banned from entering Russia. After this bill, Bill S-8, passes, Mr. Putin and his oligarchs would be banned from entering Canada, as if they would ever risk being arrested and tried for war crimes.

This is important legislation. It is non-controversial. It has the support of the Conservative Party. We have always been in support of the decisive use of our Magnitsky act to sanction international criminals. It needs to be passed soon, and it needs to receive royal assent to close the gap.

The House resumed consideration of the motion 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.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North likes to bring up what happened over eight years ago. That is over a decade ago. I do not think Netflix existed back then. What does what happened eight years ago have to do with Bill S-8 and the current legislation we are debating?

The government passed a motion so it can do evening sittings, but it has chosen not to exercise it many times. This is a choice made by the government House leader. The choices the government makes indicate where its priorities are or maybe that it simply does not have a plan for what government legislation is absolutely critical. On this particular one, I am pleased with the contents of the legislation, but I am worried about enforcement. I am worried about whether Iranian nationals who came to Canada years ago, post-2015, would be able to stay here because there would be no enforcement of the provisions in Bill S-8.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am going to share my time with the member for Calgary Nose Hill. I know members often forget to indicate this and it causes a bit of consternation at the table, so I wanted to mention that off the top.

Just so my constituents know what the debate is about, we are talking about Bill S-8, which would amend paragraph 35.1(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which is affectionately known by many of us as IRPA, because it is just easier to use the acronym, as with everything in government.

This bill would basically change the grounds for inadmissibility to Canada under IRPA to match with our sanctions list. Part of the debate over the last 18 months has been the government having to catch up over time and sanction new people in order to match sanctions to people we do not want to let in as we list new organizations, new people and new events that happen all over the world.

Many of us were gripped by the protests taking place by women standing up for their rights in Iran after the death of Jina Mahsa Amini, a Kurdish woman whose hometown was Saqqez, if I'm pronouncing it correctly. I am sure my Kurdish friends will correct me by email very soon. She was visiting Tehran, and she was picked up by the morality police. I am sure they noticed on her identity papers that she was not from Tehran and quickly figured out she was Kurdish. They beat her in custody, and she died a few days later. This sparked mass protests in Iran.

Then the government decided to start sanctioning individual bits and pieces of the regime in order to show it was on the side of the protesters. Many Iranians in Canada were asking why the government was still letting in members of the regime; people who have profited from the regime; people who are close to the regime, such as wives or girlfriends; or people close to the regime coming here to study.

I was getting videos and pictures of people landing at the Toronto Pearson Airport who were known members of the regime. Of course I would always tell them, “We don't know what you know, and you should inform the RCMP”. When they would go to the RCMP, they would usually be told the individuals or organizations were not sanctioned and that they had not been found inadmissible to Canada.

This bill would partially close that hole, which many of us and the worried members of our communities have called for in the past. We also know that if we do not enforce the sanctions or inadmissibility grounds, then it does not matter how many people we put on the list. We need a government that has the will to act and actually impose the sanctions on individuals and enforce them through information gathering and information sharing in order to identify these people in Canada.

I will draw the attention of the House to one specific person, and this is one I hear about quite often when I go to Iranian protests and rallies in Canada. Morteza Talaei is a former police chief of Tehran. He was the police chief when Zahra Kazemi, an Iranian Canadian and Montrealer, was arrested. She was beaten and died in custody.

The fact that we do not enforce our sanctions is one of the next debates we will have after this. When this piece of legislation hopefully makes it to committee and beyond and actually passes into law, then government can find the time to enforce it. Not only can the government devote resources to it, but it can also give political direction to the CBSA to detain and deport these people.

I had an Order Paper question given back to me just a few months ago that indicated the government was only following through on half its deportation orders for people who had already been found inadmissible to Canada. It is a shocking number that has gone way down since the pandemic, and that is a very worrying sign to me.

I want to cover what is happening in Iran, speak a little about the People's Republic of China and then cover the Russian Federation and its war of aggression on Ukraine. Those are the three major countries many of us think of when we think of our sanctions regime and the people we would like to be found inadmissible to Canada.

On Iran, I have been a big supporter of the protests. There are individual case files that have come to my constituency office that I have tried to advocate for, both directly with the Minister of Immigration and in working with members from both sides of the House.

I want to mention that I have politically sponsored Mohammad Amin Akhlaghi, who was sentenced to death by the regime simply for the act of peacefully protesting. I also sponsored Amir Mohammad Jafari, who was arrested at school when he was 17 years old. He was taken to prison, tortured and then sentenced to 25 years in jail, followed by exile after his prison sentence was complete. This was for the crime of corruption on earth, which is a broad claim made against many individuals in Iran.

Many of these individuals' family members have contacted me. It is just a broad-based accusation. They can do anything they want. This is through IRGC-controlled courts and a justice system where there is no justice.

Many organizations have been sanctioned. We have sanctioned different bits of the regime. However, in many cases, the fact that we are politically sponsoring them ensures their protection. It shows the Iranian regime that we are looking at individual cases. I track them every few days. I ask my staff, and I look them up to make sure that nothing has happened to them.

The government needs to be doing more. The little bit that we found in Bill S-8 is not, I think, quite enough just yet. The government needs to be defining some people as inadmissible and following up on cases like those of Morteza Talaei and other Iranian nationals who have come to Canada on different visas, who may have overstayed here and who are still here. They should have their visas reviewed as well. I am hoping that this legislation will look after that.

On the issue of the enforcement of sanctions, we had a New Democratic member stand up to correct the record when a member from one of the Winnipeg ridings was speaking on behalf of the government. However, our own shadow minister for international trade had an Order Paper question come back demonstrating that over the last however many years, at our border, the Canadian government has actually stopped zero dollars' worth of merchandise coming from the Xinjiang province in the People's Republic of China because of the use of slave labour.

In comparison, America has actually stopped billions of dollars of merchandise at its border. It is not as though our markets are all that different. We buy many goods. Many companies are buying goods, such as T-shirts, socks and a lot of goods made of cotton.

In Xinjiang, cotton happens to be one of the major products that is made with slave labour. Companies have to ensure that they have an ethical supply chain, but it is incumbent upon the government to ensure that the CBSA is directed to catch these products at the border. It is impossible that it is at zero dollars.

The fact that we received that answer to an Order Paper question proves that the government is not doing enough. I am hoping that after Bill S-8 gets a fulsome debate here, in committee, at third reading and at the report stage, members will get the satisfaction of knowing that the government is actually going to follow through and enforce it.

Lastly, on the Russian Federation, as I rose before to mention, we do not have the strongest sanctions in the world. Again, we have piecemeal sanctions of different bits of the regime.

I have a Yiddish proverb, and it will come at the very end.

We have sanctioned different parts of the Russian regime. In Bill S-8, there are references to the justice for Sergei Magnitsky act. It is a piece of legislation that I worked on at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs when we were debating it at the time.

For those who do not know, Sergei Magnitsky was Bill Browder's lawyer in Russia. He uncovered a $200-million-plus case of tax fraud being committed.

He was a fervent lawyer trying to get to the truth. For his trouble, he was arrested by the Russian regime. He was kept in confinement. He was beaten, tortured and murdered for the simple act of following up on tax law and making sure that the Russian taxpayer was getting their due.

The highly corrupt regime run by President Putin and oligarchs in Russia cannot be trusted. They have now moved to a hot war. The started the war in 2014 but moved to a hot war last year. The piecemeal approach of sanctioning different parts of the regime has not worked. There are many European countries that have much stronger sanctions than we do.

I gave the example of the Republic of Poland before. It has banned not only all coal imports but also the spread of Russian propaganda. It has prevented Russia Today from broadcasting and done many other things.

Many eastern European countries have a much longer history of trying to resist what many of them will call their centuries-long oppressor. This is why many of them joined NATO after the Warsaw Pact fell apart.

I have a Yiddish proverb, because I made myself a note to mention this: “If you want to make God laugh, tell him about your plans.” Yiddish is wonderful because it always tries to say something in a positive way but actually means something kind of insulting.

In this particular case, months from now, we will be moving on to other government legislation. I am convinced that the government caucus will be accusing the Conservatives of holding up pieces of legislation because we want to debate things and bring forward issues and individual cases that we think are worth listening to in this chamber. We will be told that legislation needs to be rushed because it needs to be passed.

I will think back to this moment when we debated Bill S-8, when we were debating legislation that many of us agreed with.

It is the government House leader's job to schedule Government Orders and to make sure that the priorities of the government are passed. I note that this legislation started in the Senate instead of the House; so much for a House of sober second thought when we are the ones looking at government legislation from the Senate.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member could inform us how this bill, Bill S-8, might impact someone like Jihadi Jack. He is a British terrorist who fought with ISIS in Syria and said he would be happy for martyrdom by cutting off people's heads, including his friend's, for being in the British military. Britain cut off his citizenship, yet we are putting out the doormat for him.

Maybe the member could comment on that.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Edmonton Strathcona raises a good point that the government is woefully lacking an enforcement regime for some of the measures that are undertaken with regard to sanctions. This bill, Bill S-8, would put in place a framework to be able to reject permanent residence, citizenship or refugee applications on the basis of those who are on a sanctions list.

I am wondering if my colleague opposite can confirm that no persons on a sanctions list have applied for any of these forms of immigration to Canada or have made safe passage to Canada already.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, under the Special Economic Measures Act, Canada sanctioned over 1,200 individuals from Russia, Ukraine and Belarus due to Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine. In support of women's rights in Iran, I think Canada has imposed sanctions on over 215 individuals and entities in Iran.

Can the government confirm that under the present legislation, Bill S-8, that the members of the sanctioned entities can also be found inadmissible? Secondly, if the sanctioned individuals are already in Canada, can they be removed under this legislation?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is such a pleasure to be able to rise and speak to legislation that reinforces something that has been discussed and debated in the House now for quite a while, two political regimes out there and the impact they are having on the world today.

We hear a great deal from members of the opposition talking about the issue of inflation. Looking around the world at the current level of inflation rates, I often stand and talk about the reality of what is happening in the world that, in part, is causing inflation to occur, such as the two regimes I would like to spend a bit of time talking about, and why this legislation is before us today.

The war in Ukraine has caused so much hardship in many different ways. There are Ukrainian communities not only in Ukraine but around the world, and I believe that if Canada is not second it might be third behind the United States with respect to the size of our Ukrainian heritage community. I say that because, typically, whatever takes place in Ukraine, whether today or back in 2014 at the Maidan or Independence Square, or the independence of Ukraine back in the early 1990s, the people of Canada genuinely care. That should not surprise anyone when we look at the demographics of Canada. Over 1.3 million people of Ukrainian heritage call Canada home.

It is not just people of Ukrainian heritage who have made that connection, but in good part it is the neighbours, the working environment and our educational institutions, where we find a great deal of discussion concerning Ukraine. I am much more familiar with what is happening in Ukraine than I am, I must admit, with Iran, and I want to be able to amplify that. I know there are so many people in my home province, and in fact in Winnipeg, who are following the war in Ukraine, or the war that is taking place in Europe. This weekend I will be hosting a special lunch at one of our local Ukrainian churches. There is no doubt that the number one issue I will be addressing Sunday afternoon is the illegal war taking place in Ukraine.

I have asked for some numbers, and based on the community numbers provided to me, we have seen well over 12,000 people, and someone suggested as high as 15,000 people, displaced from Ukraine who are now living in Manitoba. When we look at the numbers and we drive around Winnipeg or the rural communities, whether Dauphin or even the community of Gimli, what we see is substantial support for Ukraine in the form of Ukrainian flags being flown in office and home windows. I say this because of what has taken place over the last year with respect to how the Ukrainian community, not just in Ukraine, Canada and the United States but around the world, has really come together in solidarity. The friends of Ukraine, people who are not necessarily of Ukrainian heritage, recognize that, like Canada and its allied countries, they need to be there for Ukraine in a very real and tangible way.

I remember standing up and speaking in the House, where I was talking about how we should be providing support for Ukraine. It was maybe just over a year ago. The Prime Minister had indicated to me not to forget lethal weapons. It is important that the types of supports we are putting in place for Ukraine, in working with allied countries, are really making a difference. A part of that support speaks directly to the legislation we have today. The legislation deals with one aspect of the things we are doing to show the world that Canada is behind Ukraine. That is the issue of sanctions.

When the war broke out in Ukraine, there were many demands put on the Government of Canada. We did not necessarily have to hear them, as we had ministers taking up their responsibilities and already taking action. However, we literally had thousands of people throughout the country stand up in rallies saying, “What can we do as a nation to protect the interests of Ukraine?” There were ideas such as humanitarian aid. I remember we said we would match Canadians' contributions to humanitarian aid and I believe it was a $12-million commitment that we made, though I might be out by a bit. It was just a matter of weeks, if not days, that the cap was hit, so we had to expand that cap because Canadians wanted to see humanitarian aid.

When it comes to the military, more than 35,000 Ukrainian soldiers have benefited from our Canadian Forces and the training we provided. We have provided all forms of ammunition and other types of supports. Very recently, Ukraine has received one of our tanks, a Leopard tank I believe. Members will find that we are providing multiple numbers of many different things.

The point of this is to recognize our support, whether it is lethal weapons, humanitarian aid or providing leadership with our allied countries so there would be a united front in taking on Russia. One of the areas in which Canada has made significant headway is on the sanctions. It is having an impact. Canada has taken a very strong approach in regard to a multitude of tools we can use in order to clearly indicate that there will be consequences for what is happening in Europe with this unprovoked, inhumane war that Russia commenced on Ukraine a year ago.

The people of Russia are, in fact, starting to see the consequences of economic sanctions that have been put on to the country and of sanctions for the regime itself. Canada will continue to be there for Ukraine in a time of need in regard to holding Russia accountable. Banning close associates and key supporters of the Putin regime, including those responsible for Russia's unprovoked aggression in Ukraine, from entering our country is one of the many ways we are holding Russia accountable for its crimes. We will continue to exercise all options to uphold freedom and democracy.

When we look at Bill S-8, we see that there are amendments being proposed that are needed to align Canada's sanctions and inadmissibility frameworks to ensure that those who are responsible for Russia's aggression, and already subjected to sanctions, would be inadmissible to Canada.

Individuals and entities that have been sanctioned for their support of terrorism and systemic and gross human rights violations are inadmissible to Canada. The changes we would be putting in place would allow the Canada Border Services Agency to deny entry to, and ultimately remove, sanctioned individuals, and would allow Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada officials to deny visas. Once in force, these amendments to the IRPA would apply to all foreign nationals subject to sanctions by Canada, as well as to any accompanying family members.

We can take a look at many of the actions throughout this war that are taking place today or have taken place in the last 10 or 11 months in Ukraine. We hear about human rights violations. Just yesterday we were talking about the notwithstanding clause in the House, and highlighted the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Canadian values. If we were to apply Canadian values to what is taking place in Ukraine, it is very obvious. We could show that in a classroom of grade 1 students. We could sit down and explain it to a child, and the child would understand that very clearly. That is how blatant, in Ukraine in a time of war, the types of actions that Russia has taken are. We can cite specific examples of things, from mass murder to rape and all forms of seduction and torture that are taking place in Ukraine, so it is fairly easy to put forward that particular argument.

I can change channels and talk about Iran and the regime in Iran, because even though I spend most of my time talking about Ukraine, the legislation would also apply to the regime in Iran. One can only imagine, in terms of what it is that, in particular, women today have to put up with in regard to what is taking place in the Iranian regime. Again, Canada will continue to hold the Iranian regime to account for its crimes and human rights abuses.

We stand in solidarity with the women and demonstrators across Iran who are advocating for their rights and freedoms. That is why we are implementing the strongest sanctions in the world, which include banning senior IRGC operatives from Canada. The government continues to be unwavering in its commitment to keep Canadians safe by taking all appropriate actions to counter terrorist threats in Canada and around the world. We have a moral responsibility to hold the Iranian regime to account, and we will do just that.

The restrictions on women are very upsetting. I pointed out what is taking place in Ukraine, which can be explained quite easily to virtually anyone who wants to listen. The Iranian situation has been taking place for a while. It has been very difficult in certain aspects for women, and it is gender based. The economic and social hardships that they have had to overcome are because they were born female versus male.

On the issue of human rights and Canadian values, in certain areas of the world, we all need to be concerned about advocating in a stronger and more aggressive way for the recognition of women and their proper place in world society, and there is much work that needs to be done. Some countries, sadly, are so extreme in their behaviour that it is completely unacceptable, especially with respect to discrimination against women. There are countries that will sponsor terrorism to invoke the element of fear by killing randomly and by suppressing the rights and freedoms of their own populations.

We have a great deal of debate inside this chamber about the issue of human rights and what we can do. If we were to take substantial, tangible action to deal with those hours of debate we have had over the years on this issue it would be to support this piece of legislation.

The legislation before us would send a very clear message, whether to Russia, Iran or other countries that do not share the types of values of Canada has. We have tools we can use to ensure we are promoting our values. That is what Bill S-8 is. It is about ensuring that we have sanctions and that we could prevent people from entering Canada or from ever being in Canada. It would also enable us to get rid of individuals here in Canada who have been associated with this issue in a direct way.

I encourage all members to support this legislation. It would be a wonderful message to send on this issue to see this legislation pass soon.

The House resumed from December 12, 2022, consideration of the motion 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.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, as somebody who has had a battle with mental health issues, I can tell the hon. member that this bill, for our government, for myself and I believe for every member in this House, is something that is exceptionally important and something that we want to get right. We have had very good and deliberative discussions among all parties, and I think we have the opportunity to continue those deliberations to make sure that we get that balance right and that we meet the objective we all have of ensuring that we protect vulnerable people.

Tomorrow we will resume the second reading debate of Bill S-8, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. On Monday and Wednesday, further to the opposition House leader's question, we will call Bill C-39, which extends the temporary exclusion of eligibility for medical assistance in dying where a person's sole medical condition is a mental illness until March 17, 2024. I would also like to inform the House that Tuesday and Thursday of next week shall be allotted days.

Foreign Affairs and International Development

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, before I start today I would also like to express my deep condolences to the friends and family members of our colleague, Jim Carr. As members can see, I sit very close to where the member sat. I know he was a strong parliamentarian, and I thank his family for sharing him with us. I am very happy we were able to pass his private member's bill before he passed.

I would also like to express my condolences to those who worked quite closely with Mr. Carr in this place. I know many members, both of his own caucus and from all parties, were very close colleagues of his, and I give my sympathies to them as well.

Today we are speaking about Tibet and the challenges the Tibetan people are facing. I welcome every opportunity to speak about human rights, to speak about the rights of people around the world and to speak about the rights that are being denied to the people of Tibet. It is vitally important that as parliamentarians in Canada we are constantly aware of the human rights abuses that are taking place around the world and that we use whatever power and voice we have to raise those human rights abuses.

I was a member of the foreign affairs committee that did this recent study on Tibet and the Sino-Tibet dialogue, and I heard testimony from numerous people who told us about the challenges the Tibetan people are facing, so I am very happy to be able to stand and to speak about the need for continued dialogue and the need for Canada to continue to support the Tibetan people.

We are seeing the Chinese Communist party perpetrating human rights abuses among a number of different groups and a number of different people. There are definitely parallels, when we see the suppression of rights of the Tibetan people, with regard to the Uighur people. There are definitely parallels when we see how the Chinese government is shutting down dissidents and silencing dissidents within its population.

Therefore, of course the opportunity to speak to this is very important, and I know others before me have said this, but I want to also acknowledge that December 10 was international Human Rights Day. It is a day to acknowledge the importance of protecting human rights and a day to recognize those who defend human rights at risk to their own safety.

I am going to give a few examples of people who have done that. In the Philippines, Cristina Palabay has suffered serious threats from her government after she testified before our parliamentary committee, the international human rights subcommittee. The government is threatening her; her life is at risk; there are risks to her of being red-tagged by the Philippine government.

In Iran, the IRGC is executing protesters and arresting artists, human rights defenders and all those protesting for freedom. Semiramis Babaei is one of those artists. I know her cousin, a Canadian citizen, is deeply concerned about her safety.

In China, Huseyin Celil, a Uighur activist, has been illegally incarcerated for 16 years. For 16 years his wife and children have not heard from him and have not known how he is. Even now, Dong Guangping, who spoke against the Chinese government, is missing, and his family, his wife and daughter who live in Canada, have no idea of his whereabouts.

In Russia, we have Vladimir Kara-Murza, who has been imprisoned because he spoke out against Putin's brutal attack on Ukraine.

This is just a handful of individuals who have risked and continue to risk their lives for democracy, for human rights and for justice in their countries, and if my standing in this place and saying their names can protect them, help them, amplify their calls for justice and ensure human rights are protected around the world, then today and every day, every one of us must say their names: Cristina Palabay, Huseyin Celil, Dong Guangping, Vladimir Kara-Murza.

However, as we come together today to talk about the challenges that human rights defenders face, as we come together to talk about the challenges that the Tibetan people face, I want to raise some concerns I have about the process by which this came forward.

I have concerns that there are individuals within this place who are using tools to bring forward debate not because the debate is something that is pressing at the moment, but rather to stop the actual work of this place. I am concerned about it because we are seeing the exact same thing happening in the foreign affairs committee.

The foreign affairs committee did this important work to look at what is happening in Tibet, to examine the need for further Sino-Tibetan dialogue and to continue that dialogue, and to have Canada have a voice to press the Chinese government to act in a more ethical, more important manner. However, that same committee can no longer work. We are being prevented from doing very important work, and I will give members some examples of that.

Right now, we have yet to release a report on what is happening in Ukraine with the illegal invasion by Russia of Ukraine and the attacks on its people, on civilians, the horrendous violence that is being perpetrated against the Ukrainian people, the illegal invasion of a sovereign nation, an ally of Canada, that is being done by the Russian Federation. We have not released a study on that to Parliament. We have not tabled the findings of our study, because we have not been able to get that through the foreign affairs committee.

We have a study on Pakistan. Everybody in this House should be deeply concerned about the response to the horrendous and horrific flooding in Pakistan. We should be tabling a report on the study we did on the flooding in Pakistan, on the way our development dollars are spent and the way the government is using development dollars to help people around the world. We cannot do that, because our foreign affairs committee is not able to get that work done.

I am deeply concerned about what is happening in Iran. As I mentioned in my statement, we are hearing horrendous stories of protesters being executed. People who are simply standing up for their human rights, simply asking for the right to live in their country, for the right to democracy, for the right to justice, are being executed in their countries right now. As a foreign affairs committee, we have an obligation to be examining what is happening in Iran and recommending actions for our government to take. That is vital work for the foreign affairs committee to be doing.

I, in fact, brought forward a study that I think is extremely important for the work that we do as a country, on looking at our sanctions regime. Yesterday, I spoke to Bill S-8 about the sanctions regime, about how our sanctions regime is not as effective, not as strong and not as capable as it should be. I brought a study forward at the foreign affairs committee, and we were meant to study it during the fall session, but of course that also did not happen.

Finally, I would also point out that since the spring, since April, the foreign affairs committee has attempted to look at the reproductive rights of women in every corner of the world. This, for me, is probably one of the most important issues we face. This is something that implicates almost every single human being, certainly 50% of the world. We know tens of thousands of women die each year because they do not have access to reproductive health care.

We know that what we are seeing south of us in the United States is very problematic. In fact, the Supreme Court of the United States of America has made a decision to take away the rights of women. That has implications that ripple around the world. As the foreign affairs committee, we have an obligation to examine what those impacts are.

We have an obligation to bring forward any recommendations that will help women around the world access their right to bodily autonomy and health care, but we are unable to do that right now, to be honest, because of one member of the foreign affairs committee. I will not even say it is the party, because I have worked very well with the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and I have worked extremely well with the member for Chatham-Kent—Leamington. However, there is one member within our committee of 11 who has completely destroyed the ability of the foreign affairs committee to do any meaningful work.

I want us to think about that for a minute. I want us to contemplate the fact that the rules of this place allow it. They allow one member to take over a committee and impose his will on that committee. However, is that democracy? Is that something in which our constituents, those of Edmonton Strathcona, or in other ridings in Alberta or around the country, would like to see their members engage? Do they want us to work collaboratively to find solutions, to find ways for us to go forward, or do they want to listen to somebody speak for hours and hours on nonsense? These are some of the questions I have for my constituents.

Speaking of my constituents, today I was supposed to have a very important meeting with the Alberta Federation of Labour. Of course, we all have very busy lives. We have our time in the House, but we also have other obligations that we undertake. One of the most-important issues for me right now is helping Albertan workers transition to a future economy, so I meet as often as I can with the Alberta Federation of Labour. I know it is at the forefront, representing the needs and rights of workers with respect to transitioning to a future-facing economy. However, I am not at that meeting today because I am in the House, again, because the Conservatives are trying to prevent the House from doing the work we had determined we would do. I have concerns about that as well.

One of the things that most bothers when I look at this is that, as a parliamentarian, I am not part of the government; I am part of the opposition. The opposition has an obligation to hold the government to account, to watch what it does, to evaluate that, to suggest changes and to call it out when we do not agree with the actions it has taken. When a member of the Conservative Party filibusters the work we are trying to do, it means that nobody is keeping an eye on the government's actions. We are not doing our job as parliamentarians to hold the government accountable.

I know that my colleagues within the Liberal Party, within the government, do not always necessarily welcome our advice, but I think they recognize the value of having a democracy where we work together on building consensus and making laws and regulations stronger. I think we all know that is the best way for us to work together.

This is all to say that I have deep concerns about why I am now giving a speech in the House on something that is interfering with some of the business of the day, which we thought we would be engaging in today.

However, I do not want to, in any way, take away from the fact that the foreign affairs committee did a study on what was happening in Tibet, and it is a very important study. I was very happy to take part in that. I was very happy to table that study to the House of Commons and have the House and the government respond to it. I was very happy to see that Tibet was included in the Indo-Pacific strategy and that the government brought forward that strategy. However, my worries on the rationale for the debate at this time still stands.

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member perhaps did not listen to my speech and does not know that we were debating Bill S-8 today, which is about sanctions, our sanction regime and how to strengthen our sanction regime. It is not really about my Christmas wish list, although I will say that dental care, pharmacare and sick days for workers are super important to me, and I am glad that she brought them up.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a great honour to stand in this place to speak on behalf of the residents and constituents of Edmonton Strathcona. I am particularly delighted to stand today to speak about our sanctions regime and the work that needs to be done to strengthen it and ensure it is as adequate and as strong as it can be.

We know that sanctions are one of the tools we have to hold governments and individuals around the world to the rule of law, to human rights, to democracy and to fairness and justice for their citizens. For a very long time, many members in this place have worked very hard and well together to try to increase the effectiveness of our sanctions regime and the ability of sanctions to do what we hope they will do, which is to change the course of governments and individuals, to change their behaviour and punish them for the harms they have caused without harming and punishing innocent people and citizens.

The act we are debating today is Bill S-8. This act would amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, to make consequential amendments to other acts and to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations.

The proposed legislation amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or the IRPA, and it provides Canada with much-needed abilities to better link government sanctions with authorities related to immigration enforcement. I think we can all agree that this means that not only will foreign nationals sanctioned due to the invasion of Ukraine be inadmissible to Canada, but it will also stop all previously sanctioned individuals from places like Iran, Myanmar or Burma, South Sudan, Syria, Venezuela and Zimbabwe among others.

I and the NDP are very supportive of the bill, but we need to consider, and most of my comments today will be on this, that this is a small piece of what needs to be done to strengthen Canada's sanctions regime.

The bill would not fix some of the things for which we have been calling for some time; for example, the absence of parliamentary oversight. We have very little parliamentary oversight of our sanctions regime, and I will speak to that a bit later.

This would also not fix the enforcement in areas that are not immigration related, for example, the seizure of assets. Again, I will speak to this in more depth later on, but I would raise again in the House that to date about $121 million has been seized from Russian oligarchs as part of our sanctions regime to force Russia to stop its illegal war in Ukraine. While that $121 million is an awful lot to me and probably an awful lot to most of us in this room and in the country, it is not an awful lot for Russian oligarchs.

The bill would also not fix the challenge that we as parliamentarians have with clarity. We still do not have a good system in this place that explains why the government chooses to add some people to the list to be sanctioned, how those decisions are made and how the timing of those decisions is determined. We know we work with our allies and other countries. That is very important for sanctions to be effective. However, as parliamentarians, we need to have more clarity on how those decisions are made.

As we go forward in looking at strengthening the sanctions regime, there are people in the House who have been doing very important work on this. I have to call out my colleague from the Conservative Party, the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, for his excellent work on the Magnitsky sanctions. The Deputy Prime Minister also did great work on ensuring the Magnitsky act was put in place. Of course, as some people have mentioned before, and my colleague from the Bloc mentioned just previously, the challenge is that putting a law in place does not actually matter if we do not enforce it or if we do not ensure it is adequately applied.

A perfect example of this is that with the Magnitsky sanctions, we are supposed to do a five-year review. Five years is 2022. There is some review being done in the Senate, but we have not done any review within the foreign affairs committee or within this Parliament. For me, that is the challenge we have.

I spoke briefly about the need to strengthen our sanctions regime. For years, the NDP has been pushing for a stronger sanctions regime. We are happy to see some of the important changes that this bill would bring forward, but there are things we have been asking for for years, including in the 2017 foreign affairs committee study on Canada's sanctions regime. Many of the recommendations from that study have not been implemented. We look forward to the government moving somewhat faster than it has to date to make sure those are implemented, especially considering that right now what we are seeing in Ukraine is a vital need for sanctions to be a key piece of our response to the Ukrainian war.

Another example of why our sanctions regime has not been as effective as it could be is the waiver. We saw the government in the summer, in the middle of July, put a waiver in place that would cancel some of the important sanctions we put in place against Russia. I am not going to stand here and pretend that would not have been a very difficult decision for the government to make. Our German allies and Ukrainian allies were asking for different things, and that is a very difficult situation to be in. While I did not agree with the decision that was made by the government, I do accept it was a difficult decision to make.

That said, first of all, the pipeline the waiver was supporting was a piece of equipment returned to Germany to be returned to Russia, and Russia did not pick it up. The second thing is that the pipeline it was meant to be used on has now been blown up. There is no reason whatsoever for us to still have this waiver in place and still have this lessening of our sanctions against Russia, yet we still do.

The Government of Canada has still not cancelled the waiver, which is appalling. It is something it should be doing immediately. I know the foreign affairs committee will be recommending that, if we can get out of the filibuster that has been put in place by some of our colleagues in the Conservative Party.

The other piece of our sanctions regime that I want to know about is how we can double-check it to see that what is happening is adequate and being done properly. I have talked a bit about sanctions oversight, and we know that after Russia invaded Ukraine in February, sanctions were put in place. However, we also know that those sanctions trickled out after months and months. We learned that many oligarchs had the opportunity to move their assets from Canada so they would not have those assets seized. That is a missed opportunity since those assets were supposed to help rebuild Ukraine and help with the rebuilding initiatives.

We also know that the government has failed to provide the clarity on sanctions that we have hoped for. For example, I have asked about this multiple times in the House and through Order Paper questions to get more information and details on who is being sanctioned, what is being sanctioned, what has been seized, how it is being seized and what processes are being used. However, I have never been able to get an adequate answer from the government.

In fact, one of the Order Paper questions was returned to me with a response that said the government was not 100% sure that it would be able to give me accurate information, so it provided me with no information at all. That is an interesting tactic. I would love to see somebody try to say in a high school or university course that since they are not sure they are giving all the information, they will give none at all. That is something we have problems with. We still do not have that level of clarity.

I have another concern. When the government introduced the last budget implementation act, there was a change to the way that sanctions were dealt with. In the past, there was parliamentary oversight because the government needed to record the use of the sanctions regime or the sanctions act and needed to report it to Parliament. It needed to be tabled with Parliament.

In the Budget Implementation Act, that requirement was removed. Therefore, it is now no longer the government's obligation to tell Parliament what those sanctions are or what has been seized. We could find out if we took the government to court and used a judicial remedy, but we cannot find out just through parliamentary processes.

This is taking away the right of all parliamentarians to have that transparency and to have that understanding of how our sanctions are being chosen, how they are being enforced and if they are working. A sanction is not that useful if it is not being enforced. A sanction is not that important if countries or individuals understand that it will not be enforced in Canada.

There is an interesting thing I found out as I was doing some digging around sanctions. If we want to find out what goods are coming into Canada from Russia, we can look at Russian shipping records. We cannot find that out by looking at Canadian shipping records.

It is very interesting to me that there is transparency that can be found in the U.S., the U.K., the EU and Russia, but we cannot find it here.

That is another challenge I have with our sanction regime. As I said at the beginning, this particular bill would help with some aspects of our sanction regime. I am very happy to support this legislation. I am very happy to see that it would be fixing some of those holes around our sanction regime. However, this seems very much, to me, like tinkering around the edges.

We have heard from the Senate. One of the key quotations from the Senate hearings on Bill S-8, from Canada's foremost expert on sanctions policy, Andrea Charron, was this:

While there is nothing wrong with highlighting in the Immigration and Refugee Act that inadmissibility due to sanctions is possible, this repeats a pattern whereby Canada tinkers on the margins of legislation without addressing core policy and process issues. If we are to continue to sanction autonomously with allies, we need to fix fundamental issues of policy and [fundamental issues of] process.

I believe that we have many things we still need to do. We need to have a comprehensive review of Canada's sanction regime. The NDP has proposed a study at the foreign affairs committee on Canada's sanction regime. That study was meant to have taken place during this fall's session. We are very hopeful that it will take place very quickly once the winter session begins. I urge my colleagues in the Conservative Party to stop filibustering our committee so that we can get on with the very important work of foreign affairs.

We can ensure that our sanctions are being more effectively applied. We can bring forward legislation that would align with the recommendations in the 2017 foreign affairs committee report that called for greater transparency. It called for a review of our sanctions regime and called for a parliamentary body of all parties that would assist in identifying which names and which individuals should be on the Magnitsky list and should be sanctioned by the Government of Canada.

One of our biggest problems, and I have said this many times, is that if we cannot fix our sanction regime, our sanction regime very quickly becomes not as effective and not as useful as we need it to be.

I think that members of the House have brought up circumstances where that is the case. We know that, for example, in Ukraine, sanctions are one of the key tools we have to hold Russia to account for its illegal invasion in Ukraine. It is one of the key levers that Canada can pull to force the Russian Federation to rethink this horrific and illegal attack on civilians.

It is also one of the things that we can use when other human rights abuses are raised around the world. We are seeing horrific attacks on protesters in Iran. Just this morning, I woke up to another horrific example of a protester being executed because he was fighting for his freedom. We know that there are many Iranians who are in grave danger right now. If this sanction regime can be fixed and can help the people in Iran even a little bit, it has to be done.

I am interested in looking at sanctioning a whole range of characters around the world who we know have been responsible for atrocious human rights abuses, such as what we see in Yemen and from members of Saudi Arabia. We need to be ensuring that, as a country, we are standing up for human rights, using the tools we have at our disposal for those efforts.

I also want to point out that the sanctions regime is a tool we also have to use for our feminist international assistance policy and for the feminist foreign policy that we certainly hope the government tables in Parliament very soon. We know that a huge percentage of the people who are identified by the Magnitsky sanctions and the other SEMA sanction measures are perpetrating human rights abuses that are disproportionately impacting women and girls around the world. We know that sexual violence and gender-based violence have been used as a tool to silence journalists and human rights defenders around the world. We know that rape has been used. This violence does not align with a country like Canada, which has a feminist foreign policy and a feminist international assistance policy, and we need to be looking at our foreign responses through that lens.

I would like to end my comments with this. As I was travelling here from Edmonton yesterday, I took some time to read some of the speeches from the Nobel Peace Prize winners, and I want to read a quote to the House. It is by Oleksandra Matviichuk from the Center for Civil Liberties, the 2022 Nobel Peace Prize winner. She spoke to me about the need for sanctions and why it was so important that we work with our allies to make our sanctions regime stronger.

She stated:

Peace, progress and human rights are inextricably linked. A state that kills journalists, imprisons activists, or disperses peaceful demonstrations poses a threat not only to its citizens. Such a state poses a threat to the entire region and peace in the world as a whole. Therefore, the world must adequately respond to systemic violations. In political decision-making, human rights must be as important as economic benefits or security. This approach {must} be applied in foreign policy...

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his remarks. I would remind the House that I was the one who moved the motion in support of Iranian women and the fight they are waging because of what is happening in Iran.

I have been to some demonstrations with Iranian women, and this was something they were calling for.

Bill S‑8 is one thing, but what happens next? Who will be targeted and affected by this bill? There is the whole issue of the Iranian regime and what this might include. It will be very interesting because these are important issues. This is another fight that is far from over, in another part of the world.

I want to once again express just how strongly we stand in solidarity with the Iranian people who are demanding more justice and equality, especially for Iranian women.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a challenge to speak right after my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé. I would like to say hello to him today, as I have not seen him in a while. I am happy to see him again and I wish him a happy and healthy new year. I think that is the least I can do.

I have been listening to the debate today. There is an expression that says that we cannot be against apple pie. I am trying to find a better expression for the holidays. I could say that we are not against tourtière or Yule logs. I really feel that this is a bill that we all agree on.

This makes us all feel good at the end of a year during which the government all too often introduced poorly drafted legislation and another party obstructed proceedings for the sake of being obstructionist and engaging in petty politics. How many times have I said that we need to have more children like us in the room? Actually, I mean the adults in the room. It is what it is. It is a reasonable and sensible position for a bill that must be passed.

I rise to speak to the bill that amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to reorganize existing inadmissibility provisions relating to sanctions to establish a distinct ground of inadmissibility based on sanctions. The bill also seeks to 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. Finally, the bill would also expand the scope of inadmissibility based on sanctions to include all orders and regulations made under section 4 of the Special Economic Measures Act. This will give it even more weight.

The bill also makes 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 the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

I will begin by saying a few words about the bill, I will talk about different points of view, and then I will list some gaps we should address.

First, the bill, which passed in the Senate, updates the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to make inadmissible to Canada individuals and their immediate families that are targeted by sanctions such as those imposed on businesses and individuals. This is being done in the wake of escalating Russian aggression since the illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022. That is the context for this measure.

In 2017, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development released a report, known as the Sergei Magnitsky report, that addressed the approach to Canada's sanctions regimes. Recommendation 13 of that report called for the act to be amended. Sergei Magnitsky was a Russian lawyer who died in a Russian prison under murky circumstances after exposing the corruption of Russian oligarchs. His death gave rise, in both Canada and the United States, to sanction regimes under the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, also known as the 2017 Sergei Magnitsky law.

I will digress for a moment, because this phenomenon still exists in 2022. My thoughts are with the journalists who died under some very disturbing circumstances in Qatar after speaking out against what was going on with LGBTQ+ communities. Quite frankly, it is worrisome. I hope this bill will be a first step and send a clear message that this is unacceptable in this day and age.

Implementing this recommendation became a priority last spring in the aftermath of the invasion of Ukraine, as I said.

As my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé pointed out, inadmissibility based on sanctions might relate to security, international human rights abuses, criminality, organized crime, health, finances, misrepresentation, non-compliance with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act or family inadmissibility. It is quite interesting.

Furthermore, the bill's inadmissibility provisions include individuals who are members of a non-state organization, such as terrorist groups. That aspect is explicitly set out, which is good.

This bill should pass unanimously. As I said, when I was listening to the debates in the House, I got the impression that there was unanimous agreement. That was the case in the Senate. After all, the bill simply brings the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act into line with the economic sanctions that Canada wants to impose and must impose on belligerent countries.

On May 17 the bill was introduced in the Senate before ending up in the House of the Commons. This bill has been on quite a journey.

Rumour has it that the Conservatives and the NDP are going to support the bill. Something interesting is happening as we wrap up before the break. I would like to note what Senator MacDonald said in his speech in the Senate:

I recognize that there is jurisprudence that permits literally anyone to make a refugee claim at a Canadian port of entry, but I remain concerned that there are those who will inevitably abuse this, using it as a loophole to gain entry into Canada. Such individuals can then potentially use the slow pace of our judicial system against us in order to remain in Canada for an extended period of time.

There is not only the slow pace of the system, but also the means that some may use to take advantage of the situation, including financial means.

The Bloc Québécois has called for and defended economic sanctions against Russia's unjustified invasion of Ukraine. We believe that the individuals targeted by these sanctions should be inadmissible because the sanctions are a foreign policy tool intended to combat violations of international law and international standards.

Quebeckers and Canadians alike want Quebec and Canada to be a safe haven for people fleeing war, corruption and persecution, not a refuge for criminals. That has been said before, and we are saying it again.

It is all the more important to say this because Granby, in the heart of my riding, is a safe haven, so we experience all kinds of situations.

Quebec wants to be a safe haven for people who have fled war, corruption and oppression. Those who start wars and violate human rights should not be welcome here.

That is why the Bloc Québécois will support Bill S‑8.

According to the UN, Russia has committed numerous war crimes during its invasion of Ukraine, including bombings of civilian areas, a large number of executions, torture, ill-treatment and sexual violence. That list could grow longer as the conflict drags on, which would be even more worrisome.

From the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine, the Bloc Québécois has brought forward several concrete proposals that were accepted by the government to accelerate the intake of Ukrainian refugees and families. We asked that the requirement for the collection of biometric data for certain categories of refugees be lifted and that flights be chartered. I know that some MPs, like the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, even took Ukrainian families into their homes. In such cases, what can we do to work together and welcome these people?

Moreover, it is vital that we update the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act so it is consistent with all the sanctions regimes. Bill S‑8 updates this law to add sanctions to the list of grounds of inadmissibility. We want everything to be consistent.

I should note that the bill is consistent with the different sanctions implemented under the Special Economic Measures (Ukraine) Regulations pursuant to the Special Economic Measures Act. These regulations have been amended more than 40 times since Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its invasion of Ukraine in February. We can see that progress is being made.

If Bill S‑8 is passed, the various sanctions regimes, such as those under the United Nations Act, the Special Economic Measures Act, or organizations of which Canada is a member, like NATO, could apply. I think that is a good thing.

The bill would allow a border officer to turn back a sanctioned individual upon arrival, which would greatly simplify the deportation process. The bill also fixes gaps in the law to ensure that Canada respects the rights of asylum seekers and meets its international obligations in terms of taking in refugees.

A person who is targeted by a sanctions regime can claim asylum, but they cannot be granted permanent residence as long as they are targeted by a sanctions regime. That adds weight.

Bill S‑8 would also make it possible to fix the problems that were introduced by the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, which prohibited individuals targeted by a sanctions regime to file a claim for refugee protection. This correction is in line with the refugee convention, which states that only refugees who have “been convicted by a final judgement of a particularly serious crime, [constitute] a danger to the community of that country”. That is sufficient grounds to remove a refugee from the country or deny them entry. That is very interesting.

I would like to close with a bit of compassion. Beyond what we are talking about today and the debate on how people are welcomed here, I want to point out that, as I mentioned, Granby is a welcoming place. I would be remiss if I did not mention the incredible work of Solidarité ethnique régionale de la Yamaska, or SERY, which is celebrating its 30th anniversary this year.

This organization helps newcomers to integrate. It does an outstanding job for the community and the region. As its slogan so eloquently says, “our home is your home”.

I would like to end on that positive note and recognize the good work of the people at SERY.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues. This does not happen often, but I will say it: For once, we all agree.

It is like the bill we are debating now, Bill S‑8. Quite simply, we want consistency. The idea is to impose measures against individuals or states, but especially individuals. Top of mind for us all right now are Russian oligarchs, but Iranian groups or groups from other nations could be targeted by sanctions. They would be denied entry or could be removed from the country on those grounds.

The bill will impact a number of laws. I have read the legislative summary, and it is quite complex. There is the Special Economic Measures Act, the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, or Sergei Magnitsky law, and the United Nations Act. The aim is to amend a pile of legislation to ensure that Canada's system is consistent when it comes to imposing sanctions on foreign offenders. There is no point in mincing words: They are criminals, people who have made populations suffer or simply, which is no better, usurped their country's, their nation's, economic wealth and who come to a country like Canada to lead a nice, quiet life.

There have been too many cases in history of war criminals and people who committed horrible crimes and were finally discovered in a southern country at the age of 89. For 40 years, they had relaxed by the pool or at the beach, with their drinks in hand while the people they made suffer never recovered. There were those who died, the children who were injured or killed, and the women who were raped. In the face of all these horrors, we must take a consistent approach and bring them to justice.

However, this does raise questions. My Conservative colleague who spoke just before me raised a very pertinent question. He wondered why this arrived in the House on December 12. I do not know if anyone will vote against it. We always have that right, but I do not believe it will happen. I think that the bill will pass rather unanimously. I think we can pass it quickly and move on to something else.

How did it take two months for the bill to be introduced in the House? During that time, people have been in Canada getting a free ride. That is the issue. These are people who are targeted by sanctions who are taking advantage of the quality of life, health services and so on that Quebec and Canada have to offer, and they are getting away with it. I have a hard time with that.

When we talk about the Magnitsky law, we talk about people who were tortured and mistreated. I am thinking about Evgenia Kara-Murza, whom I had the great privilege of meeting at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights a few months ago. She holds her head high, courageously, and talks about her husband as much as she can. Her husband is currently imprisoned in Russia by people who have already poisoned him twice. I invite members to stop for 30 seconds and try to imagine being in that situation. She is touring western countries, trying to drum up international pressure and have people talk about her husband as much as possible, hoping to save his life.

How can we allow people who poison dissidents, who imprison them without cause and who create hundreds of political prisoners to come to Canada or Quebec to live a nice, quiet life? We cannot do that. That is why the House is unanimous.

Inadmissibility on the grounds of sanctions will be added to the grounds of security, human rights violations, criminality, organized criminal activity, health grounds, financial grounds, misrepresentation, non-compliance with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and family inadmissibility. The grounds for inadmissibility in the bill also apply to individuals who are alleged to be members of non-state organizations, such as terrorist groups.

Incidentally, there are ways to identify terrorist groups. Yes, there are groups that should be on the list and are not yet, but it is in the works. Still, it is possible to blacklist terrorist groups, implement specific sanctions for those people and take away certain rights. If it can be done in that context, why is it not possible to create a list of criminal organizations as a means to control illegal firearms? I do not understand that.

I hope nobody catches any of the flu viruses, which are pretty bad. That is why I have been absent a few times in recent weeks, but I have been keeping an eye on what is going on in the House from afar. I am very proud of my Bloc Québécois colleagues, who very capably dealt with the firearms management crisis the government caused and who demanded additional meetings with experts. We are fortunate to have a group of hard-working, professional people here. Those people are, of course, the Bloc Québécois members.

I was watching all of that from afar, and I found it very sad. I think it is a good thing when members of terrorist organizations are banned from entering the country. We do not have to do these people any favours. However, why are we doing favours for known gang members who party on the weekends wearing their colours and vests? I do not understand that.

This is not about democracy. It is about weapons trafficking. My colleague from Rivière-du-Nord, who is a member of the justice committee, introduced a brilliant bill on criminal organizations. I invite the government members to use it to draft a bill along the lines of the one we are currently examining. We do not have to give a chance to criminals, abusers and those who make others suffer.

This bill is a no-brainer. The Bloc Québécois thinks that Canada and Quebec should be a safe haven for people fleeing war, but not for those who cause wars and make people in their home country suffer. It should also not be a safe haven for thieves, con artists, criminals or profiteers.

Therefore, I invite everyone to quickly vote in favour of this bill. Before I conclude my remarks, I just want to mention a concern that we should be vigilant about as we move forward. Earlier, my NDP colleague made a good point about parliamentary oversight for the bill's next steps, and I believe that is very pertinent. Nevertheless, I want to raise another concern.

The oligarchs living here have money. They can pay for lawyers and take legal action. One of my concerns is that these people could launch lawsuit after lawsuit, claiming that the deportation is not justified. They would get to remain here for several more years enjoying themselves, while the people who suffered at their hands are dead or in prison in their country of origin. If any of my colleagues can respond to that, I thank them in advance.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill S‑8.

The bill before us is basically very simple. It adds a ground for refusing entry into the country if one is the target of economic or other sanctions imposed by Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I wish to share my time with my very congenial colleague from Shefford. Fortunately, her arrival jogged my memory. I believe that I also need the unanimous consent of the House to do that.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address 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. The bill before us seeks to make several changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The bill proposes to reorganize existing inadmissibility provisions relating to sanctions. This proposal is to establish a distinct ground of inadmissibility based on sanctions that Canada may impose in response to an act of aggression.

When Russian dictator, Putin, invaded Ukraine, the world watched in horror. A democratic country, in a region of the world where I and so many other Canadians have family roots, was being shelled and attacked with hostile aggression.

Since the invasion of Ukraine commenced in February, the Government of Canada has imposed sanctions under the Special Economic Measures Act, also known as SEMA, on over 1,000 individuals in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. However, these sanctions on their own were not grounds that would have been enough to prevent those friends of Putin from gaining citizenship, permanent residency or refugee status in Canada. Bill S-8 serves to correct that loophole.

Bill S-8 also proposes to expand the scope of inadmissibility based on such sanctions. It recommends to include not only sanctions imposed on a country, but also those imposed on an entity or a person. Such sanctions are becoming more and more common as we see dictatorial governments where the citizenry need not be held accountable for the tyrannical actions of the dictator in charge.

The sanctions against the country, although beneficial to show Canada's opposition to the actions of a rogue government and practicality, have the largest negative impact against those citizens. It is those citizens who now will bear the weight of a corrupt dictator and face the unintended impacts of our sanctions.

Bill S-8 would also expand the scope of inadmissibility based on sanctions to include all orders and regulations made under section 4 of SEMA, the Special Economic Measures Act.

It would also amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations to provide the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, instead of the immigration division, to have the authority to issue a removal order on grounds of inadmissibility based on sanctions under the new paragraph 35 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

This gives me pause. I understand the value of having the ability to have the Minister of Public Safety step in and become involved should the situation warrant it, but the current minister is certainly not a beacon of responsibility, accountability and trust.

Let us not forget that it was the current Minister of Public Safety who, in his previous position as the minister of immigration, was responsible for failing to protect the Afghan interpreters that Canada relied upon in the war in Afghanistan.

Let us not forget that it was the current Minister of Public Safety who introduced the strongest emergency legislation in Canada against his own citizens when he invoked the Emergencies Act to avoid meeting with freedom convoy organizers who came here to be heard by the government.

Let us not forget that it was the same minister who was having his Liberal colleagues turn Bill C-21 from a ban on law-abiding handgun owners and sport shooters into an all-out targeting of hunters, farmers and indigenous Canadians.

If I were to go through all the failures of the current Minister of Public Safety, I would need more time than I have, but I know my colleagues are eagerly waiting to speak. I can take solace in knowing that the powers in this legislation will belong to a Conservative Minister of Public Safety after the next election, but I digress.

Currently the laws of Canada do not directly specify that international sanctions are a basis upon which we can reject permanent residents, citizenship or refugee applications. We do have faith in our bureaucracy to make the decisions that need to be made to protect Canada and the enjoyment of citizenship, permanent residency or refugee status. This new framework would provide it the ability to make clear and direct decisions that would completely implement the will of Parliament and fully utilize existing laws, like the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, also known as Canada's Sergei Magnitsky law.

Bill S-8 also practically ensures that no sanctioned individual could appeal the actions taken against them and their application for citizenship, permanent residency or refugee status due to the vagueness of the laws. Without Bill S-8, the bureaucracy could not simply disallow an application on the grounds of the applicant being a sanctioned individual. Now they need to go through a more untraditional process of excluding them for the actions that put them onto the sanctions list, which can lead to vagueness in the rejection.

We know these sanctioned individuals typically are coming to Canada with ill-gotten gains. They therefore have the means available to them to hold up the process, litigate the decisions and not only tie up our courtrooms and appeal processes from those deserving of them, but also cost the Canadian government and taxpayers time and money dealing with these processes.

I am glad the government has finally taken the time in the House to implement the Magnitsky act in a manner that would give it some teeth. Conservatives are supporting this bill. We have always strongly supported sanctions against individuals, entities and countries that threaten the national interest or international law. We have been critical of cases where individuals with ties to prescribed organizations, but who are not necessarily on a terrorist list, have been allowed entry to Canada. We have always put the national interest first with respect to questions of citizenship and immigration. Conservatives have strongly supported the Magnitsky act.

Canadians should not worry sanctioned individuals are seeking to enter our communities when so many legal, law-abiding applicants are waiting to immigrate. Our allies must also be assured we will uphold our sanctions.

In closing, this legislation was introduced, as was mentioned previously, in the Senate in May of this year. It was passed through the Senate in under a month. That is including first reading, second reading with debate, committee stage, the report stage and the third reading with debate.

The Liberal government introduced Bill S-8 to the House of Commons on October 4, and now, on December 12, it finally gets floor time. We wonder why it took the Liberals so long to close this gap in our immigration law. What has been the hold up? It would seem the Liberals have run out of debt-inducing legislation and have decided to use these final few days before Christmas to move forward with the legislative priorities of Canadians.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the wonderful member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner.

It is always a pleasure to rise in this chamber to speak to legislation. Today, we are talking about Bill S-8 to ensure that foreign nationals who are subject to economic sanctions are not able to enter our country.

Since we are also talking about human rights, I did want to take a moment to address an incident that happened this weekend to a very important person to Parliament, Irwin Cotler, who was at the premier of a documentary of his life and tireless work for human rights across the world. He was openly harassed and criticized at this event, which disrupted it and made quite a mockery of the whole thing. It made people very uncomfortable. Everyone should be open to public criticism and debate, as Mr. Cotler has always been and has never shied away from, but we are losing our decency as a society if we think it is acceptable to treat fellow humans this way.

In many circumstances, criticisms of accomplished Jewish people are often rooted in some form of anti-Semitism. It is okay for us to disagree with each other and we should encourage that at all times, but free speech also comes with a responsibility to treat one another with respect and decency.

We are now 10 months into Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine, but it was back in 2014 when Russia took actions and annexed Crimea. This egregious step was a blatant violation of international law. These attacks have caused the widespread devastation of Ukrainian infrastructure and property and the deaths of a number of civilians, notably women and children. These actions are a continuation of accelerated aggressive steps taken by Russia against Ukraine, and they threaten the international rules-based order. Canada responded, in part, through the use of economic measures, as did many of our allies. These sanctions are contained in the Special Economic Measures Act, and they affect about 1,000 individuals in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus.

The bill we have before us seeks to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or IRPA, as we just heard the minister refer to it, in order to do several things, as I understand it.

First, the bill seeks to reorganize existing inadmissibility provisions relating to sanctions in order to establish a distinct ground of inadmissibility based on sanctions that Canada may impose in response to an act of aggression.

Second, it proposes to expand the scope of inadmissibility based on such sanctions to include not only sanctions imposed on a country, but also those imposed on an entity or a person. This is important given we have listed individuals as part of our economic sanctions, not just countries.

Third, it would expand the scope of inadmissibility based on sanctions to include all orders and regulations made under section 4 of the Special Economic Measures Act.

Last, it would amend the immigration and refugee protection regulations to provide that the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Emergency Preparedness, rather than the immigration division, will have the authority to issue a removal order on the grounds of inadmissibility based on sanctions under a new paragraph of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. That will provide Canada with the needed ability to better link government action with economic sanctions for those who are seeking to come into Canada and experience a wonderful life here.

The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act 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, its inadmissibility provisions do not align with the basis for imposing the majority of economic sanctions. This means that an individual who has been sanctioned economically can still show up to Canada and claim refugee protection. They are then able to be here in Canada to experience the life we have built. This is quite clearly a loophole that undermines confidence in our system and laws, and Canadians will not accept that these sanctioned individuals get to remain in Canada.

This loophole matters not only to Russian actors. Let us not forget about other countries with citizens who have been subjected to some of these sanctions: Belarus, Myanmar, South Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, North Korea and, of course, Iran.

With Iran, I will also mention that we should be doing much more than we are. We just heard an exchange between members of the opposition and the minister on that front. It is important to list the IRGC as a terrorist organization. That was the will of the House constituted back in 2018 and was again reaffirmed by the House just recently. We must act much more forcefully with respect to the IRGC. Canadians expect that of us.

Canada is often behind when it comes to some of these international actions. This is becoming part of our international reputation, and it is not a good one. We have been late with Magnitsky sanctions. We often wait to see where the political winds are blowing. We are too careful not to offend anyone.

Let us consider the government's official response to the Iranian protests, as we have discussed, or the treatment of the Uighur population by the Chinese Communist Party. We have been calling on the government to do more and it continually shies away from its responsibility. We are not being taken as seriously by the international community as we once were.

All too often, Canada's position is not substantive and not principle-based. It is slow to act, and often with half measures. Take, for example, the government's frenetic position on China. If we do not like the government's policy on China, we just have to ask another minister and we will eventually get the answer we like. Often the government is caught without a plan and requires significant public shaming to get some action.

Let us take, for example, the international commitment to fight money laundering through introducing a beneficial ownership registry and regime. This is exactly connected to preventing individuals who are sanctioned economically from hiding their assets across the world. Canada has one of the weakest laws for identifying assets in beneficial ownership. We are one of the only countries that has yet to introduce the beneficial ownership registry. The government promised to do it all the way back in 2019, then it said it would not get to it until 2025. Now it says that it will be bringing it in at the end of next year, but we are still waiting to see the legislation.

Yes, the government has agreed to fast-track it, but there is still much more to do. All the other countries are moving so much further ahead of us when it comes to fighting global money laundering. Again, it is connected to this legislation because these individuals have assets all across the world. It might be the case that we will not allow sanctioned individuals to come into Canada now, but those individuals could still hide their assets here because we do not have a way of finding out who owns what in our country. We need to do much more, much more quickly on this front.

Once again, the government says all the right things, but fails to execute on much of it. Yes, we see some action here, but I guess, as the saying goes, a broken clock is right at least twice a day.

I look forward to the committee discussions on Bill S-8. It is important legislation. We have already heard members in the chamber on the opposition side ask why it is taking so long. We look forward to moving the legislation through to committee, addressing perhaps some of the amendments that were brought forward by the NDP. It is an important step for our country to put in place measures that make it harder for individuals who have violated human rights and international laws to come here, to remain in a wonderful country that we have built and get the advantages of the political and legal systems that we have built.

It is with great pleasure that I speak in favour of the legislation and I look forward to it going to committee.

[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.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. We will continue our discussions about when the House will adjourn for Christmas. This afternoon, we will continue debate on the Conservative Party's opposition day motion.

After that, we will vote on the adoption of the supply for the current period. Tomorrow, we will be begin debate at report stage of third reading of Bill C-9, the judges bill.

Next week priority will be given to Bill S-8, the sanctions legislation; Bill S-4, COVID-19 justice measures legislation; and Bill C-18, the online news act.

Foreign Affairs

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I speak today in this House in solidarity with and offering my full support to the brave men and women of Iran who are rising up against this brutal regime. For too long the Ayatollah, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and the so-called morality police have repressed the Iranian people for their own gain. The brutal killing of Mahsa Amini was a spark in a long history of repression and violence the Iranian authorities have imposed on their own people. Now people from across Iranian society have risen up to demand freedom, justice and accountability.

I want to make it clear to Iranian Canadians and Iranians abroad that the people of Canada and the Government of Canada stand with them as they fight back against the shameless disregard for human rights. Our government, along with our international partners, is committed to holding Iran accountable for its actions in accordance with international law. I would like to reiterate the robust measures Canada has imposed against Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC, in response to these recent incidents, as well as long-term actions against Iran's systemic human rights violations.

Canada has imposed vigorous sanctions against the Iranian regime, the IRGC and their leadership under the Special Economic Measures Act, or SEMA. These sanctions, which explicitly target the IRGC, also target several sub-organizations, including the IRGC air force and the air force missile command directly. This freezes all assets in Canada that belong to listed individuals associated with the Iranian regime, the IRGC and their leadership. Contravention of these provisions can carry heavy criminal penalties.

Our government has also listed Iran as a state supporter of terrorism under the State Immunity Act. By doing that, together with the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, victims of Iran's human rights abuses will be allowed to take the Iranian regime to court for damages relating to terrorism and its support of it. However, this, of course, is not enough. Once Bill S-8, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, becomes law, it will align the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, IRPA, with the Special Economic Measures Act, SEMA, to ensure all foreign nationals subject to sanctions under SEMA will also be inadmissible to Canada.

Furthermore, on Friday, October 7, the Prime Minister announced that Canada will work toward pursuing a listing of the Iranian regime, including the IRGC leadership, under the most powerful provision of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. This means that 10,000 officers and senior members of the Iranian regime, including its top leaders, will be permanently inadmissible to Canada. We are doing this in a targeted way, making sure to punish those who are involved in these activities while ensuring we do not negatively impact those Canadians, our neighbours, who may have been forcibly conscripted into the organization a long time ago, despite having no affiliation with the regime today. Working with the international community, moreover, the UN Security Council has now passed a number of resolutions to impose sanctions on Iran, which come into effect under Canadian law through the United Nations Act.

I will end as I started by letting all Canadians know, especially our Iranian Canadian community here at home, that we will not waver in our commitment to keep Canadians safe, countering terrorist threats in Canada and around the world and holding the Iranian regime accountable for its heinous crimes, human rights violations that are oppressing the freedom-loving people of Iran. We remain unwavering in our commitment to keep Canadians safe, including by taking all appropriate action to counter terrorist threats both in Canada and right around the world.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, the brutal killing of Mahsa Amini by the so-called morality police and the Iranian regime's deadly response to the peaceful protests are once more displaying Iran's shameful disregard for human rights and the regime's support for terror. Our government, along with our international partners, are committed to holding Iran accountable for its actions in accordance with international law.

I would like to reiterate the robust measures Canada has imposed against Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or the IRGC, in response to these recent incidents as well as long-term actions against Iran's systemic human rights violations and ongoing behaviour that destabilizes regional security.

Canada imposes rigorous sanctions against the Iranian regime and its leadership under the Special Economic Measures Act, or SEMA, which explicitly targets the IRGC and several suborganizations, including the IRGC air force and the air force missile command. Since the beginning of October, Canada has already listed 42 individuals and 12 entities under the SEMA, in addition to the 202 previously listed Iranian entities and individuals.

Measures under the SEMA prevent Canadians from dealing in any property belonging to listed persons. This effectively freezes all assets in Canada that belong to the sanctioned persons. Contravention of these provisions can carry heavy criminal penalties.

Additionally, Canada lists Iran as a state supporter of terrorism under the State Immunity Act. This listing, together with the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, allows victims to bring civil actions against Iran for losses or damages relating to terrorism. Once Bill S-8, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, becomes law, it will align the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or IRPA, with SEMA to ensure all foreign nationals subject to sanctions under SEMA will also be inadmissible to Canada.

Furthermore, on Friday, October 7, the Prime Minister announced that Canada will be pursuing a listing of the Iranian regime, including the IRGC leadership, under the most powerful provision of the IRPA. The Iranian regime, including its top leaders, more than 10,000 officers and senior members, will be inadmissible to Canada in perpetuity for their engagement in terrorism and systemic and gross human rights violations.

Moreover, the UN Security Council passed a number of resolutions to impose sanctions on Iran, which are implemented into Canadian law under the United Nations Act. As a result, 84 Iranian individuals and entities are sanctioned under this act. Similar to the Canadian measures under SEMA, engagement in certain activities and transactions involving listed individuals and entities is prohibited in Canada and for any Canadians outside of Canada.

The Criminal Code also sets out a terrorist listing regime to help prevent the use of Canada's financial system to further terrorist activity and to assist in the investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences. Several of Iran's key proxy actors are captured by this scheme. For example, Canada has maintained the Criminal Code listing for the IRGC Qods Force as a terrorist entity since 2012. This force is recognized as responsible for terrorist operations and providing arms, funding and training to other terrorist groups.

The government continues to be unwavering in our commitment to keep Canadians safe, including by taking all appropriate action to counter terrorist threats in Canada and around the world.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, on October 4 we marked 1,000 days since the downing of Ukrainian International Airlines flight 752, and our thoughts continue to be with the families of those who were killed. Keeping Canadians safe is of paramount importance to this government.

Iran's nefarious influence in the region and its support of terrorism must be addressed, and we are working with like-minded countries to continue to keep pressure on Iran to cease its unlawful behaviour. The brutal killing of Mahsa Amini by the so-called morality police and the Iranian regime's deadly response to the peaceful protests are once more displaying Iran's shameless disregard for human rights and the regime's support for terror.

The government, along with its international partners, is committed to holding Iran accountable for its actions in accordance with international law. I would like to reiterate the robust measures Canada has imposed against Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC, in response to these recent incidents, as well as long-term actions again Iran's systemic human rights violations and ongoing behaviour that destabilizes regional security.

Canada imposes vigorous sanctions against the Iranian regime and its leadership under the Special Economic Measures Act, or SEMA, which explicitly targets the IRGC and several suborganizations, including the IRGC air force and air force missile command. Since the beginning of October, Canada has already listed 42 individuals and 12 entities under SEMA, in addition to the 202 previously listed Iranian entities and individuals. Measures under SEMA prevent Canadians from dealing in any property belonging to listed persons. This effectively freezes all assets in Canada that belong to the sanctioned persons. Contravention of these provisions can carry heavy criminal penalties.

Additionally, Canada lists Iran as a state supporter of terrorism under the State Immunity Act. This listing, together with the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, allows victims to bring civil actions against Iran for losses or damages related to terrorism.

Once Bill S-8, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, becomes law, it will align the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or IRPA, with SEMA to ensure that all foreign nationals subject to sanctions under SEMA will also be inadmissible to Canada.

Further, on Friday, October 7, the Prime Minister announced that Canada will be pursuing a listing of the Iranian regime, including the IRGC leadership, under the most powerful provision of the IRPA. The Iranian regime, including its top leaders, more than 10,000 officers and senior members, will be inadmissible to Canada in perpetuity for their engagement in terrorism and systemic and gross human rights violations. Moreover, the UN Security Council passed a number of resolutions to impose sanctions on Iran, which are implemented into Canadian law under the United Nations Act.

The Criminal Code also sets out a terrorist listing regime to help prevent the use of Canada's financial system to further terrorist activity and to assist in the investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences. Several of Iran's key proxy actors are captured by this scheme.

For example, Canada has maintained the Criminal Code listing of the IRGC Quds Force as a terrorist entity since 2012. The Quds Force is recognized as responsible for terrorist operations and providing arms funding and training to other terrorist groups. We are committed to holding Iran accountable for its heinous crimes and human rights violations, and for threatening peace and security in the region and in Canada.

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

moved for leave to introduce 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.

(Motion deemed adopted and bill read the first time)

Message from the Senate

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: 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 being 5:43 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.