Evidence of meeting #64 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 inadmissible.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Marco Mendicino Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
I think this is important. CSIS has briefed other levels of government at their request. Most recently, a number of—
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
It's a question of what information is coming to you and the Prime Minister, though. It seems to me that if an everyday citizen is facing the threat of foreign interference, that should be treated with an extreme level of seriousness.
Conservative
Liberal
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.
Liberal
Liberal
Marco Mendicino Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Mr. Chair, as you can see, I'm trying to be as responsive as I possibly can. I think we are moving a bit afield from the four corners of the bill that we are here to debate, but I want to be transparent with Mr. Genuis and all of you.
Look, we take the issue very seriously. We're being up front. We're putting in place the tools that are necessary to ensure the safety and security of all parliamentarians, and this is going to be the ongoing work that I hope we can do across the aisle.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Thank you, Minister.
We next go to Dr. Fry.
Dr. Fry, you have four minutes.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
Thank you very much, Chair.
Thank you, Minister, for coming and answering all the questions that you're asked and trying to be transparent with regard to those questions. I think that's very important.
I want to go back to what the Canadian Bar Association said. They felt that the concept that included “country” made it too broad. How are you going to deal with the idea that everyone coming from...?
Take Russia, for instance. I mean, we're clear about who we're sanctioning in Russia. The question is this: Is it Duma? Is the whole Duma sanctioned in Russia? What about individuals in the country? Just because you're a Russian living in Russia, does that mean you're sanctioned? I think that's something that people really want to know, because it's broad. I think that was the question from the bar association.
The other question I want to ask is this. Refugee claimants who are from a sanctioned regime have the ability to come and seek individual admissibility as a refugee. Who is going to look after that? How is that going to be investigated? You said it's on a case-by-case basis, but where is the buck going to stop in terms of that investigation?
Liberal
Marco Mendicino Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Through the chair to you, Ms. Fry, I appreciate both questions. I think they are related.
In the first instance—the operation of the bill that is before you—once it is in force, it will be triggered only after an analysis has been undertaken by Global Affairs with regard to the listing of an individual under the Special Economic Measures Act. That analysis, as I understand it, within the expertise and the domain of Global Affairs, focuses on gross human rights violations and on corruption.
Those judgment calls are made on the basis of the facts that are before them. They will look at whether the individual has been in some way affiliated with a hostile actor or an authoritarian regime that is perpetrating those bad acts, those gross human rights violations or that corruption. They will be entitled to look at the entirety of the record before them.
If they are satisfied that the threshold is met under that statute, then that will automatically trigger the inadmissibility under the new provision that we are proposing under section 8 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
The point is to ensure that Canada is not a safe haven for any individual who may be trying to prop up an authoritarian regime.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
I wanted to ask a question about entity. I think my colleague Mr. Zuberi asked that question with regard to entity. What if someone inadvertently was a member, a stakeholder or a stockholder in an entity?
How do you define “entity”? “Entity” is not fully defined in this bill. How do we define that clearly?
Liberal
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.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
I know, but the question is this: Unless you define “entity” clearly in the bill, how are people going to understand what you mean when somebody owns shares in a company that is carrying on acts and didn't know about it?
How is that definition going to be used? I think that's the clarity people are seeking, so people don't get inadvertently caught.
Liberal
Marco Mendicino Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Mr. Chair, through you to Ms. Fry, perhaps Mr. Burridge from Global Affairs might be able to shed some additional light, because the analysis really does fall within the remit of GAC.
I would invite Mr. Burridge to add a few words about this.
Director, Sanctions Policy and Operations Coordination, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Individuals and entities are listed very specifically under SEMA. The sanctions themselves apply to the specific individuals or entities that are listed. In this way, there's a dealings prohibition that is put on Canadians, preventing them from being able to deal or to transact with those specific individuals or entities.
That said, when we're talking about inadmissibility, the inadmissibility would apply to individuals and entities that are listed under SEMA. Shareholders, for instance, may or may not be listed individually. Therefore, the inadmissibility applies only to those that are actually listed under SEMA.
Liberal
Bloc
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?
Liberal
Marco Mendicino Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
First of all, when I was the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, we accomplished a great deal. During the pandemic, we reorganized the immigration system to welcome a record number of immigrants. In the government's opinion and in my view, this is good for job creation and for the economy, and it strengthens Canada's record on welcoming refugees and vulnerable persons. In fact, you already asked me about that.
This bill will strengthen the existing powers that guarantee that Canada will never offer safe refuge to those who support authoritarian regimes.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Two minutes goes by fast.
I'll go back to one of the concerns I was raising earlier about the impact on those who may inadvertently be on the list incorrectly or may disagree with that assessment. You've outlined that there are processes to deal with that, that there are processes for people to get redress, or to submit an appeal, but those things cost an awful lot of money and take an awful lot of time.
In fact, my team, who are remarkable, have explained that it can cost thousands of dollars. We know refugees don't have thousands of dollars.
How will you mitigate this risk?
Liberal
Marco Mendicino Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
That's an entirely important question to which we have to make sure we respond. There have been some modifications.
Ms. McPherson, allow me to clarify one of the answers I provided earlier, and my officials will expand on it. There are some references to the use of the word “entity”. This is a key change to the project of law that is before the committee. It ensures that sanctions against non-state actors, like ISIS, the Taliban, or al Qaeda are inadmissible. I wanted to make sure I put that clarification on the record.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
What is the answer to the question that this could cost thousands of dollars that refugees don't have? They won't actually have access to justice and won't have access to the systems you've put into place to protect them. What is your answer?
Liberal
Marco Mendicino Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Our answer is that, in fact, I know my colleague the Minister of Justice has put in place additional legal aid supports to ensure that those who are seeking asylum, or seeking to make a refugee claim, are able to get access to legal aid services to navigate the system.
I know, as well, that we're working closely with organizations that advocate for refugees, like CARL, with which we have close relations. We are putting clear information on our websites to make sure refugees can navigate those processes.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
The access is through legal aid. Just to clarify, has it been increased, so that it can accommodate some of the needs?