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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Okay.
(Clause 5 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
We'll now go to proposed clause 5.1.
We'll go to Madam McPherson to move it.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Chair, forgive me, but I'm a little bit out of practice. Would you like me to read through the clause before I give you my rationale, or how would you like me to proceed?
Liberal
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
All right. It is that Bill C-353 be amended by adding after line 2 on page 6 the following new clause:
5.1 (1) Any order or regulation made under subsection 5(1) must be evidence-based and outline the rationale for determining that a foreign national, foreign state or foreign entity has acted as described in subsection 5(2) and must be redacted to remove any classified or sensitive information.
(2) Before making an order or regulation under subsection 5(1), the Governor in Council must implement robust identity verification measures, including the verification of date of birth, place of birth and national identification number of foreign nationals, to prevent the wrongful inclusion of a foreign national, foreign state or foreign entity in an order or regulation.
(3) Any order or regulation made under subsection 5(1) is subject to judicial review to ensure compliance with Canadian law, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Canada's international obligations.
The reason that we have brought forward this amendment is that we are actively trying to prevent an individual from being unfairly designated as a “foreign national” and being unfairly designated as somebody who would be subject to sanctions. This amendment would require the government to use a more robust identity verification process, relying on multiple data points, like date of birth and place of birth, national identification and name spelling, to confirm someone's identity.
Under the current language, there is a risk that someone could be targeted because their name or partial details match those of someone else. We have seen this, and this is a particularly acute concern for individuals from certain racial, ethnic or religious communities where names may be more likely to overlap or be transliterated inconsistently.
There is, within this legislation, a real danger of racial or religious profiling disproportionately affecting those with ethnic or religious significant names.
We did hear testimony from Chief Superintendent Denis Beaudoin, who's here today with us, highlighting the critical gaps in the bill that could lead to systematic bias. He emphasized the broad discretionary powers granted to the Minister of Foreign Affairs without clear safeguards against profiling and the risk of misidentifying and unfairly targeting individuals.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Thank you very much for that, Madam McPherson.
Next is Mr. Aboultaif, and then we'll go to Mr. Bergeron.
Conservative
Ziad Aboultaif Conservative Edmonton Manning, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I'm happy to support this amendment, subject to one small, tiny amendment to line 4 under paragraph 2, to replace the word “including” with “which may include”.
If Madam McPherson accepts that, we will be happy to support this.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
For my understanding, I just want to get some clarity on that. Is it by adding in paragraph 2 “may include” instead of “including”?
Conservative
Ziad Aboultaif Conservative Edmonton Manning, AB
Yes. It's to replace “including” with “which may include”.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Then that would make it a much less strong change, because it would mean that whether or not that was included would be optional. The whole point of this is that it is not optional and that we need to have more than one data point to protect individuals from being falsely accused, so we would not—I would not—accept that change.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I have a point of order.
I just want to clarify whether that was a subamendment or not, because it was presented sort of as a subamendment. We don't have such a thing as consent of the mover of an amendment to adopt it in committee. Under the Standing Orders, it would have to have been a subamendment, because we can't simply turn to a mover to suggest that they agree and that it would be okay. That is not parliamentary procedure.
I just need clarification. If it was a subamendment, then we should vote on it. If it's withdrawn or if it was not a subamendment and was a conversation point, that's a little different.
It was clearly presented as a subamendment, but I didn't hear the chair refer to it as a subamendment.
Conservative
Ziad Aboultaif Conservative Edmonton Manning, AB
It is a subamendment. I just had to ask the presenter if she was in agreement with it before I tabled it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Then you're not withdrawing it at this point, Mr. Aboultaif. You have no intention to withdraw it.
Liberal
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
As I understood it, Ms. McPherson was simply expressing her disagreement with the proposed subamendment, which is perfectly in order.
When we come back to the amendment, I'd like to ask Ms. McPherson two questions.
December 3rd, 2024 / 11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Dave Epp Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON
Speaking to the subamendment—and I believe it is being emailed—the rationale is that with requiring absolutely every single one of those identifiers, it would be virtually impossible to impose any sanctions. I would invite our officials to comment on that.
I hear where Ms. McPherson is coming from in trying to make sure that there are enough safeguards so that we don't misidentify, but at the same time, we also don't want to completely gut the process of sanctions.
We are a little reliant upon our officials to make that determination. I would ask them to comment.
Chief Superintendent Denis Beaudoin Director General, Federal Policing, National Security, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
I'm happy to comment.
I think my colleagues from GAC and the sanction regime are better placed, because those are not RCMP decisions; they are Governor in Council decisions.
I'll turn it over to the sanctions people at GAC.
Vasken Khabayan Acting Executive Director, Sanctions Policy, and Sanctions Outreach, Compliance & Enforcement, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Thank you very much.
I haven't seen a copy of the amendment, so I'll take a look at it as well.
If I recall correctly what Madam McPherson suggested, under our sanctions regime, we currently do as much robust identification as we can. We look for all sorts of biographical information, but all of our information is from open source evidence. If it's not available under an open source, then we cannot obtain that information.
It would also make it a bit difficult, in some cases, to obtain certain types of biographical information from other countries that are obviously not going to co-operate with us in terms of providing that information.
Again, I haven't seen the full amendment. If I have a chance to review it, I can provide further guidance.
