Bill S-8

An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, to make consequential amendments to other Acts and to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations

This enactment amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to, among other things,
(a) reorganize existing inadmissibility provisions relating to sanctions to establish a distinct ground of inadmissibility based on sanctions;
(b) expand the scope of inadmissibility based on sanctions to include not only sanctions imposed on a country but also those imposed on an entity or a person; and
(c) expand the scope of inadmissibility based on sanctions to include all orders and regulations made under section 4 of the Special Economic Measures Act .
It also makes consequential amendments to the Citizenship Act and the Emergencies Act .
Finally, it amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations to, among other things, provide that the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, instead of the Immigration Division, will have the authority to issue a removal order on grounds of inadmissibility based on sanctions under new paragraph 35.1(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act .

The 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.

Speaker's Ruling

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

Motion in Amendment

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, it is nice that we finally got to the debate on what it is that we were supposed to be debating a few hours back.

Let us put behind us the fact that Stephen Harper and his government did nothing in regard to the sanctions. It took this government to ultimately ensure that there would be sanctions. The violation of human rights is something that Canadians as a whole take very seriously, as we know.

This legislation, in essence, would apply additional sanctions by not allowing individuals who have been sanctioned to be admitted to Canada going forward. Does the Conservative Party clearly support this legislation?

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

Madam Speaker, I think I have been very clear about that already, but I do want to pick up on the first comment he made about the Harper government and sanctions.

What he said is obviously nonsense. In fact, under the Conservative government, Canada led the world following the invasion of Ukraine and we were able to drive a consensus in the G7 that led to a tough response. It was likely not tough enough, but we were able to bring our allies along for a response that removed Russia from what was then the G8 and sanction Russia for the invasion of Ukraine that began at that time in 2014.

Of course, there have been changes in the world. There have been further developments since then, and I am very pleased about the passage of the Magnitsky act. It was a Conservative private member's bill that was passed following the 2015 election. I will also mention boycotting the Commonwealth summit in Sri Lanka.

After the Liberal government took office, the Liberals actually wanted to warm things up with Russia. They wanted to have good, warm, cozy relations with Russia again. That was what the then foreign affairs minister Stéphane Dion was pursuing, and the Liberals cut off sharing radar satellite images with Ukraine.

Conservatives have been steadfast with Ukraine, opposing the Putin regime from the beginning.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will refrain from commenting on the misinformation the member just presented and ask him something very clearly.

Canada is a part of the Five Eyes community. In that community, countries like the United States and England and Australia do have similar legislation. Can the member give a specific example of what those countries have done that Canada has not done if he is saying we have not put in enough sanctions? What country among the Five Eyes trusted allies has put in more sanctions?

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

Madam Speaker, everything that I said in my previous response is on the public record and is easily verifiable as accurate.

The member asked if there are instances of other countries that have imposed sanctions that Canada should have imposed. Yes, absolutely, and I will pick one present topical example.

Five years ago, the House listed the IRGC, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Iran, as a terrorist organization. The House voted five years ago. That member, if he was present, voted for it. I know the Prime Minister was present but he did not vote for that listing.

In five years, they have done nothing. It has been five years of inaction in terms of recognizing the IRGC as a terrorist organization. The United States has recognized the IRGC as a terrorist organization.

We just had hearings at the foreign affairs committee on the Wagner Group. We have been calling for the listing of the Wagner Group as a terrorist organization. The United States has listed it as a transnational criminal organization, which is slightly different, but they have applied tough sanctions against the Wagner Group that we have not applied at an equivalent level.

There have been various instances. For instance, there are officials associated with the Sri Lankan military to whom we did eventually apply some sanctions this year, but we were way behind the Americans, who had applied those sanctions years before. There are many examples, actually, of allies being far ahead of us on sanctions.

We need to do better. We should be leading, by the way, not just catching up. We should be leading in terms of taking a stand against violations of fundamental human rights.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to follow up on the comment about the Five Eyes.

It seems to me that we are losing our position in the world. The Five Eyes are not inviting us to meetings, NATO is losing confidence and we have not been included in the new relationship between the U.K., the U.S. and Australia.

Would the member comment on that?

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

Madam Speaker, I think my colleague is referring to AUKUS and the fact that Five Eyes is supposed to be, and is, this critical vehicle for collaboration among five Anglo-sphere nations for sharing of intelligence, yet the U.S., Australia and the U.K., three of the Five Eyes, are creating a separate alliance that covers many of the areas that are supposed to be covered by the Five Eyes.

Recently there have been statements out of the White House saying that there are no plans to invite Canada to participate, so we should be very concerned about what is behind those developments.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, I am a little surprised that there were no questions and comments. My colleague gave an excellent speech, after all.

I happen to have the best speaking time, right before question period. I am pretty happy to have this time slot.

Since the war in Ukraine began, more than 7 million Ukrainians have had to leave their country, often leaving everything behind in the hopes of finding refuge elsewhere. In the host countries, most of the newly arrived refugees come from areas that have been seriously affected by the conflict. They often arrive in a state of distress and anxiety, worried about what lies ahead for their family members, whom they reluctantly left behind.

To help these families, Canada set up the Canada-Ukraine authorization for emergency travel. This program allows refugees to obtain a visitor's visa to come to Canada temporarily. Applicants can then obtain a work or study visa if they wish to remain in the country. However, the administrative delays seemed endless for families. I have often mentioned this in the House when asking questions of the hon. Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. These delays were preventing Ukrainian refugees from entering the country. The minister and I had some pretty heated exchanges in the House, despite the fact that he ultimately intended to be collaborative.

More than a month after the war began, thousands of Ukrainians were still waiting for authorization for emergency travel to Canada. Once again, Canadian bureaucracy was slowing down the process. As I have often said, in my opinion, it was not because the minister lacked the will. I think the minister's will was definitely there.

Unfortunately, the problem at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, is not the captain. The issue is with the boat, the vehicle. There is water in the gas tank and sand in the gears. We have all had to deal with cases like this in our constituencies. It is never the minister's will that is lacking, it is the actual structure of IRCC that needs to be reviewed on a number of levels.

Since the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine, the Bloc Québécois has made many suggestions to quickly improve the plight of claimants, given the state of emergency. Fortunately, the government implemented some of them to more quickly welcome Ukrainian families to Canada. For example, the government lifted the requirement to collect biometric data for some population groups and it chartered flights. Unfortunately, it only chartered three flights. The provinces chartered more flights than the federal government. Once again, we can see the disconnect between the minister's will and the action that his department is taking.

It would have taken too long, because, let us be honest, when such a large military invasion occurs, it is not the time to fool around with paperwork. People need to get here as quickly as possible, without compromising their safety. Even if good measures were put in place, this once again shows that the government's response time is still much too slow in times of crisis.

The Bloc Québécois has suggested many times that the government create an emergency division at Citizenship and Immigration, a permanent emergency mechanism that would be triggered in the event of an international crisis, whether an armed conflict or a natural disaster. Having such an emergency mechanism would allow the government to intervene quickly as soon as a crisis leads to a flood of refugees, such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Taliban's return to power in Afghanistan or the earthquake in Haiti. This mechanism would allow refugees to get help as soon as possible.

The Bloc Québécois's emergency division proposal included the implementation of a special emergency visa, the expansion of the sponsorship program and the partial lifting of biometric data collection requirements. Depending on the nature of the crisis, some levers would be automatically triggered. Depending on the context, others would not be used.

Again, it is too little, too late. The minister told me in committee that, after we made our proposal, he asked his officials to implement such a mechanism. That was in the fall and I have not heard any more about it since. I am quite curious to know where things stand.

What I notice about the government's management of humanitarian crises is how painfully slow it is. I am not alone in making this observation. Most of the people directly concerned, by which I mean the victims of this crisis, also think it is too slow.

However, Quebeckers, like Canadians, want Quebec and Canada to remain a land of refuge for people fleeing war, corruption—

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

I must interrupt the hon. member for a few seconds.

I would ask colleagues to please remain somewhat silent so that we can hear the speech by the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

[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.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

There will be five minutes for questions and comments for the hon. member when the House resumes consideration of this matter.

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.