Foreign Affairs Committee on May 9th, 2023

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

Is the department then looking at other recommendations from studies from around that era that are still not brought forward?

I'm concerned that it's from 2017, and it's now 2023. Work that we're doing in other studies at this committee.... Can we expect responses on that in 2029? I guess that's what I'm trying to get at. My colleague, whose birthday is today, made the statement that the business of the government seems to not be quick. Can you comment?

[Kelly Acton]

I would invite my colleague Brett Bush to reflect on any other inputs in the formulation of this work that would be helpful to the committee to understand.

[Brett Bush, Executive Director, Immigration and Asylum Policy Innovation, Canada Border Services Agency]

It would be important to note that, since 2017, there have been two rather large events that colleagues around the table here have been trying to deal with. The first was the influx of refugees that the government dealt with through the expansion of the safe third country agreement, and the second was dealing with border management during the pandemic.

The work did not stop on trying to assess the input from this committee and trying to advance these things. There are, however, realities that we're all dealing with in moving things forward during all of this same period of time.

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

Thank you.

During the Senate committee hearings, it was identified that about 2,200 sanctioned individuals would have remained inadmissible without this act coming in. Have any of those applied for visas to come into Canada in the interim?

[Brett Bush]

A very small number of people who are currently covered by sanctions have applied for visas. They have been refused. The normal course of events would not anticipate that large numbers of sanctioned people would be seeking to come to Canada or travelling as a regular course of business.

That being said, it's trying to close the gap to make sure that all the sanctions covered under SEMA, as well as those by the United Nations and other international groups that Canada's a member of, are being applied equitably here, so that we're maintaining our support for those things.

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

On what grounds were those small numbers of visas refused in the interim?

[Brett Bush]

The current provisions of section 35(1) in the IRPA permit.... I'm sorry, it's getting very technical.

There are certain provisions in the act that allow for two of the provisions of SEMA to determine people to be inadmissible. Then there are provisions, as was mentioned earlier, of the Magnitsky act that would allow us to stop people from coming into Canada.

[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]

Mr. Epp, I'm afraid you're out of time.

Now we go to Ms. Bendayan for five minutes.

[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?

[Kelly Acton]

We ensured that all the powers coordinate the amendments so the framework remains the same.

[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?

[Kelly Acton]

I would invite GAC to speak to the sanctions process and then on the application of that to the inadmissibility regime.

[Stephen Burridge]

Individuals and entities that are listed under Canada's autonomous sanctions are subject to a dealings prohibition, which means that Canadians or persons in Canada cannot actually transact with those individuals or entities.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

If they're not in Canada, would they be inadmissible to come to Canada automatically?

[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]

Do other officials have anything to add to that? If not, I have a follow-up.

[Brett Bush]

What my colleague said was correct. Once they are listed under certain provisions in SEMA, they would be inadmissible to Canada.

The question you asked was about non-state actors. In this particular question about terrorists, the sanction provisions.... Currently, the way the immigration act is written would not automatically deem them inadmissible by virtue of that sanction of the United Nations or under SEMA. Or, if the provisions of SEMA that are not currently covered by the immigration act...they would not be deemed inadmissible to Canada. That being said, there are other provisions in the immigration act that cover people being terrorists and being inadmissible to Canada.

We'd have to look at the individual circumstances of the individual case to determine if they're inadmissible.

[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?

[Brett Bush]

Yes, the numbers will change, depending on who is being sanctioned. However, based on the sanctions that are currently in place, it would be an additional 2,700 people who would be inadmissible to Canada.

[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?

[Brett Bush]

Our partner countries have legislation that's very different from Canada's legislation, but we all tend to arrive at similar places, where governments want to announce sanctions against individuals, countries and actors, to be able to bar them from travel to their country.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Okay.

As a final question, just—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

I'm afraid you are out of time.

Now we go to Mr. Bergeron. You have five minutes, sir.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to go back to Ms. Bendayan's earlier question about the 2,000 or so individuals—it seems there are more today—who are prohibited from entering Canada.

The information about the 2,200 individuals was obviously made public during the study of this bill by the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade last June. As I understand it, there are now 2,700 individuals.

The government representative added that, between 2017 and 2022, 25 individuals sanctioned under the United Nations Act, the Special Economic Measures Act or the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act had been refused a visa. We know therefore that, of those 2,200 individuals, 25 were refused a visa.

Does that mean that some of those 2,200 individuals were granted a visa?