Evidence of meeting #131 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was report.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Dave Epp Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON
If I could follow up, the three pieces of information that are either mandatory, or not, are date of birth, place of birth and the national identification number. I would assume that the national identification number would be the hardest one to get from an unco-operative other government.
My question is this: Through an order in council on the imposition of sanctions, have you ever been able to get all three? How often are you able to get all three in order to impose sanctions?
Acting Executive Director, Sanctions Policy, and Sanctions Outreach, Compliance & Enforcement, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Again, we use open source intelligence, and I have seen occasions when we've had all three. It's very rare, though. It is highly unlikely that we would be able to obtain, through open source information, national identification numbers, if they exist for that particular country. Concerning date of birth and place of birth, we try to get as much as possible. Current location is probably more likely to be what we get.
Again, it would be highly problematic to obtain all three simultaneously in every situation.
Conservative
Dave Epp Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON
If that becomes mandatory under this clause, imposing sanctions virtually becomes impossible, if I hear you correctly, other than in the rare cases when you're able to get all of that information. The amendment as written right now, without the subamendment, would make it almost impossible to impose sanctions.
Acting Executive Director, Sanctions Policy, and Sanctions Outreach, Compliance & Enforcement, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
It would be very difficult for us to do so in every situation in which we currently have sanctioned people. Again, without particulars of any situation, I can't comment beyond that.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I will speak against the subamendment. I will be speaking against the amendment as well.
Every witness we had, except two, indicated that this legislation was unnecessary and mostly agreed that it was also unhelpful and perhaps dangerous. I think that even amending it at this stage and subamending it to try to improve it does not improve it. It could perhaps make it even worse than it is as it stands.
We will be voting against the subamendment and then subsequently, whether it's amended or not, we'll be voting against the amendment, based on the witness testimony we heard from all of the witnesses except two, who we believe were not very helpful witnesses. All of the expert witnesses said that a legislative solution to these issues was not helpful and in fact could pose more dangers to the system.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
All our witnesses have a copy now.
Did anyone have anything further to add?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Does anyone have anything further to add to the question posed by Mr. Epp?
Acting Executive Director, Sanctions Policy, and Sanctions Outreach, Compliance & Enforcement, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
We only have a copy of the subamendment. I don't have a copy of the amendment itself.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
On a point of order, could I ensure that the witnesses who are here to help our committee have a copy of the things we received? I believe the clerk should send them to the expert witnesses who are coming to help us.
We have these four amendments—NDP-1, NDP-2, NDP-3 and NDP-4—which I think should have been sent to the officials for them to be helpful for us today.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
We will now resume.
I hope everyone has received a copy of the amendments and has had a chance to review them.
Are there any interventions on the subamendment?
There are not. Let's have a recorded vote on the subamendment.
(Subamendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)
We will now go the amendment itself, with a recorded vote.
Go ahead, Mr. Bergeron.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
Mr. Chair, I'd like to ask Ms. McPherson two questions. First, I understand that there is a second series of amendments related to subsection 5.1(1). I'd like to know what her intentions are in this regard.
Furthermore, one of the objectives of her first amendment, which is currently being debated, is to provide for a judicial process. However, we note that such a process is provided for in section 8 of the bill.
How is the judicial process introduced in subsection 5.1(3) different from that provided for in section 8?
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to my colleague for the question.
First of all, we have the second clause, and we will not be moving our second amendment. It's very similar to the amendment that we moved. If this doesn't pass, we won't move the second one. Either way, I don't think we will be moving the second one.
In terms of the questions, the level of responsibility within the clause that we've brought forward is the key here. At this level, we need multiple checkpoints to ensure that the identity is accurate. That is the goal of our amendment. We think this makes the bill much stronger, because it ensures that no one is harmed by being misidentified.
We've heard from the testimony of the experts that it is a difficult process. All of us as Canadians should agree that it should be a very difficult process to ensure that identity is accurate.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Are there any further explanations?
We will now proceed to a recorded vote on the amendment.
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2)
To be clear, Ms. McPherson, did you want to move the second amendment?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Thank you for that.
We will now go to a recorded vote on clause 6.
(Clause 6 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I have a point of order.
I don't know whether this is possible or not, because I've never done it before, but I'm wondering whether we would agree to apply the vote that was done on clause 6 through clauses 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, up to and including 18, with the Liberals voting against.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Is everyone in favour of proceeding that way?
(Clauses 7 to 18 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 19)
Madam McPherson, did you want to move a motion?
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.
The amendment NDP-3 we're bringing forward is that Bill C-353, in clause 19, be amended by replacing line 3 on page 11 with the following:
“cant, confirming the error, and provide the applicant with written reasons for the determination; or”
The amendment also replaces line 5 on page 11 with the following:
“to the applicant of the determination that includes the written reasons for the determination, the evidence and criteria relied on — subject to restrictions in the interest of national security — and the rules of evidence applied.
(3) The applicant has the right to request, from a court of competent jurisdiction, a review of the Minister’s determination within 30 days of receiving the notice under paragraph (2)(b). The court must issue a decision within 30 days of receiving the request.”
Mr. Chair, the reason we have brought this forward is to help with the appeal process for false appointments of mistaken identity.
We already know that there have been challenges with this process. The appeal process to ensure that there is a fair and timely way for individuals to challenge their designation if they believe it to be unjust is important.
Being labelled a foreign national under this bill could mean severe restrictions on one's rights and resources. Providing a pathway for appeal through an independent tribunal ensures that people have recourse to correct errors and to defend themselves. Without this amendment, the bill risks violating the principles of due process and justice.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Thank you.
Does anyone want to speak to that?
We will vote on the amendment then.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
(Clause 19 as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
(Clause 20 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
(On clause 21)
Madam McPherson, I understand you have an amendment.