Foreign Affairs Committee on May 9th, 2023

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I'm not. I've been very forthright. I said the deputy minister and the chief of staff are principally responsible in the prioritization of intelligence that comes before my eyes. That's very clearly on the record now, numerous times.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

The whole line of questioning—

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

I'm out of time anyway.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

—from Mr. Genuis has been focused on anything but Bill S-8. Maybe there might be one or two on the record, but almost all of them have nothing to do with Bill S-8.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis.

Now we will go to the last questioner, Mr. Sarai.

You have four minutes.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Thank you, Minister, for coming.

My question is that this piece of legislation, Bill S-8, combined with SEMA, combined with the Magnitsky act, kind of tightens the legislation to make it a criminal offence for contravening or failing to comply with sanctions, which in all three cases, I think, is a hybrid offence, allowing violators to be charged with either a summary conviction or an inadmissible offence.

I want to know if the department's stance would be to deport such a person if they're in Canada, or charge them. We also don't want Canada to be a safe haven, where you can go and try there, and if you don't get in, the worst case is you just go back. If they have contravened any of these acts, would that be, in your view as the public safety minister, something they should be charged for, or would it be the de facto...that they be sent back?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chair, it's an important question. Yes, if someone is deemed inadmissible under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, we can then, by consequence, commence deportation proceedings to remove them.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

If they've contravened an act, though, and we can charge them here in Canada, would we pursue charges against them here? Sometimes in that case it might be a win-win for them to be able to just go back and not be charged, when they've actually committed an offence, and then that country will not charge them.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

It's important to point out that, certainly as it relates to proceedings for removals, including any other administrative proceedings, we allow for due process to take its course. There are important procedural rights that any individual who faces stark consequences, including removal and/or detention, has. What this bill will do is ensure there is due process prior to the invocation of the amendment under Bill S-8. That due process exists on the front end, under the analysis that is undertaken by Global Affairs Canada, and then on the back end, if the individual who has been listed under SEMA and is therefore inadmissible under IRPA.... They always have the option to seek judicial review before the Federal Court.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

The other question I have is more to do with inadvertent overreach. Lots of times we, as constituent MPs, get cases of people who, when they were young, were part of activist movements. They might have just gone to a rally or participated in a town hall or some sort of a little protest, and then eventually they're labelled with that, even though they did no violent actions or whatnot. Are there protective measures to make sure there isn't inadvertent overreach for people who were just involved in a rally or whatnot, but never were part of any criminal activity?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chair, I believe there are sufficient checks and balances through the due process that the individual is afforded, by the analysis that is undertaken by Global Affairs. Certainly, thereafter, if there's any question about how that discretion was exercised by officials, and then under IRPA, they can then seek judicial review before the Federal Court.

I would point out that these individual cases are taken very seriously by Global Affairs. Listing somebody under SEMA is not a trivial thing. Attention and care are given to examining the facts on the merits. That is because we recognize what's at stake for those individuals. Being rendered inadmissible is a serious thing. Therefore, we have put in place the appropriate checks and balances in the process prior to sanctioning an individual under SEMA and, by extension, rendering them inadmissible once this provision becomes law.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Will groups have the ability—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

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

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Thank you, Minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

At this point, it being almost 12:10 p.m., I wanted to thank you, Minister. You were very generous with your time. Also, I should say that some of the questions did not appear to be relevant in the least bit to me, but you were incredibly forthcoming in responding to those as well.

Thank you for appearing before our committee. We're very grateful.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

We will now suspend very briefly to allow the minister to leave and the officials to take over.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Welcome back, everyone.

We will continue on with consideration of Bill S-8.

We're very fortunate that we have a number of officials with us. If it's okay with everyone, I will dispense with titles, but I will say that, from Canada Border Services Agency, we have Ms. Kelly Acton. We also have Mr. Brett Bush.

From the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, we have Ms. Saman Fradette and Mr. David Chan.

From the Department of Foreign Affairs, we have Mr. Stephen Burridge.

From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have Mr. Sébastien Aubertin-Giguère.

For this round, we have six questioners for five minutes each.

We start off with Mr. Epp.

You have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the officials for being here.

I was struck when the minister, in his opening comments, referred to this as a bill to make sure that no “bad actors”—I think that was his direct language—would come into Canada, and he also later on commented that the bill aims to be “precise”.

I'm wondering if someone could comment as to.... Is the overall intent of this bill to be the...? I find those terms at odds with each other.

Can you comment? Is the goal to be more precise and more prescriptive, or is it to increase the amount of latitude given to a minister?

[Kelly Acton, Vice-President, Strategic Policy Branch, Canada Border Services Agency]

In response, I would turn first to colleagues at GAC. I think it is about alignment. When you are sanctioned, that means you are then inadmissible to Canada. We have a regime, and the inadmissibility regime was not aligned with that. It is now. The precision, I think, is really around how sanctions are applied and how that relates back to inadmissibility.

[Stephen Burridge]

To add to that, I would say that Canada is very judicious in its approach to employing sanctions, and when it comes to this particular bill and the amendments it makes to IRPA, it brings all of our autonomous sanctions regimes in line when it comes to inadmissibility. Therefore, any individual or entity that is listed for any of the triggers under SEMA, of which there are four, including human rights violations, corruption, and a great breach of international peace and security—

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

Thank you. I'm sorry to cut you off. I have limited time.

Speaking of alignment, then, if that is the goal, can this be characterized as a follow-up? My colleague Mr. Bergeron referenced in earlier testimony the 2017 recommendations from this committee, where the SEMA.... Basically, this was intended to address and bring SEMA into alignment with IRPA.

[Kelly Acton]

Yes, I think we would say that.

Brett, is there anything you'd like to add?

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

Is there any comment as to why it was in 2017, and this is 2023?

[Kelly Acton]

I would offer that I think it's a complex area, as we have been discussing, and we have undertaken the necessary work. The bill you have before you is a reflection of the work that has been undertaken since the committee's report.