Foreign Affairs Committee on May 9th, 2023

[Kelly Acton]

Thank you for the question.

I would ask Mr. Bush to provide clarification on the numbers and the exact amounts. I think it is about 2,900 individuals, not 2,700.

Perhaps my colleagues from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada can answer your questions about visas.

[Brett Bush]

Pardon me, but I would like to clarify something. The number of individuals who could be inadmissible to Canada under the new act is just under 2,900.

For the question about visas, I would turn to my colleagues at Immigration.

[Saman Fradette, Director, Migration Control and Horizontal Policy Division, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm sorry. I missed the specific question that you about visa refusals.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

I was saying that, during debate on Bill S‑8 at the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade last June, the issue arose of those 2,200 individuals who were sanctioned, but who would not be denied a visa to Canada. At that time, the government representative said 25 individuals who were sanctioned under various regimes were denied a visa.

So I would like to know whether, among those 2,200 individuals, some were granted a visa by the Canadian government.

[Saman Fradette]

I see. My understanding is that upon the passing of this bill, approximately 2,200 people who have been sanctioned since the invasion of Ukraine will be captured under it. Prior to that, between 2017 and January 2023, it's about 25 for the number of visas that were refused for individuals who are inadmissible based on current sanctions.

We don't have numbers on how many out of those 2,200 would be refused. At this stage, those individuals wouldn't be refused.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

The information you are providing is what has been repeated since earlier. What we need to know is how many of those 2,200 people have been admitted to Canada since 2017.

[Saman Fradette]

I don't think I have that information with me, but I can return with that.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Please provide the information later on. Thank you.

Still during that debate, there was also discussion of the amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that would be made by clauses 5 and 6 of Bill S‑8, which pertain to sanctions imposed on a country, entity or person

The problem is that the terms “country”, “entity” and “person” are not defined, so much so that some people think that the vagueness of this statement might mean that someone could specifically be refused access to Canada.

I discussed this with the minister but, honestly, I'm not sure I understood his answer. A situation could arise in which refugees, for example, conscientious objectors, people who are opposed to the war and are therefore at risk of being imprisoned in Russia, could be refused access to Canada.

Is that fear founded, in your opinion?

[Kelly Acton]

Thank you for your question.

It is not by accident that someone is on that list.

I would ask Mr. Bush to elaborate on why these terms were not defined in the bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Answer very briefly, please, Mr. Bush, because we're 40 seconds over the time.

[Brett Bush]

I'm sorry. I'll be very brief, in English.

First, the bill allows for people who are sanctioned to make refugee claims. I know that keeps coming up.

Second, it is very important to remember that we are trying to keep a clear division between the decision-making process for sanctions, which belongs with Global Affairs, outside the reach of the Minister of Public Safety. It will rest with the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It's very important to make that distinction and not import the language from SEMA into IRPA so that we start getting into all sorts of situations where we're conflating decision-making and appeals.

If I may make just one last statement, Mr. Chair, I think it's very important to understand that “country” as a term already exists in the legislation. We would be adding in an alignment of the legislation to make sure the terms allow us to cover the people who are designated, as my colleague at Global Affairs has already mentioned.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you.

We now go to Ms. McPherson for five minutes.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much.

Thank you for providing all of this clarity, and certainly don't apologize for our taking too long to ask questions of you. I wanted to follow up on that.

You talked a bit about that separation, so that the sanctions are determined by Global Affairs and not Immigration, yet, if you want to appeal it, you then have to go back to Global Affairs, to the foreign affairs minister, or to the United Nations. Is that correct?

[Brett Bush]

The processes and sanctions are in the domain of my colleague from Global Affairs, so I will not speak to that particular process, but—

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

The appeal process—

[Brett Bush]

The appeal process against the sanction will continue to rest with Global Affairs. There are recourse mechanisms to allow for people who are against the issuance of the removal order and things of that nature that are in the bill and will be permitted for people.

We have to keep in mind that this particular provision is very different from the current inadmissibility regime in IRPA, because this is a temporary inadmissibility that's linked to the sanction. When the sanction is lifted, at whatever point in time the sanction is lifted, the people cease to be inadmissible to Canada by virtue of that sanction. It's very different from other inadmissibilities found in IRPA.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

The fact that I can't understand it is probably a reflection on me more than anything else, but I wonder whether there should be a review process as part of this bill. Is there a plan for a review process with this bill, so that if these complexities result in unintended consequences, there is a way for us to make sure the bill is dealing with that? Is there a process in place for that?

[Kelly Acton]

Just to reiterate, the two processes are baked in. If an individual finds themselves on the sanctions list, the recourse is through the mechanism for the determination of sanctions. That exists. That is in place.

With respect to the inadmissibility decision, as Mr. Bush has explained, there is legal recourse, and that is consistent. We have tried to make sure, as we have brought in this provision, recognizing the difference in the temporary nature of it, to align it with how we have constructed the inadmissibility regime more generally.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Is there a review mechanism planned for this legislation, to make sure it is working?

[Kelly Acton]

The recourse is already in place, as we have laid it out, and that is part and parcel of the—

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

No, I don't mean for individual people who are applying. I mean for the legislation, to see if it is working, like a legislative review.

[Kelly Acton]

So....

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Often, legislation has a “let's check in five years and see if it's working” kind of thing.

[Kelly Acton]

I'm happy to come back to you on that.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Okay.

One of my thoughts on this is that we.... I worked with Global Affairs in my previous life, quite a bit, and I am concerned when I hear that there are multiple processes, multiple departments and multiple ministers, because, of course, this is a very complex issue. This is very costly. We can all agree that it will be one of the things that happen. Also, of course, people are at their most vulnerable at the time that they may need to access these costly, complex and difficult processes that involve multiple ministers and multiple departments. I am a bit concerned that this is the case.

I agree with people in this room that we want to do everything we can to ensure that people aren't on those lists, but I am a bit concerned about that.

I have a couple of questions. Perhaps for our GAC officials, how many individuals have applied to the Minister of Foreign Affairs to be delisted or to file a claim of mistaken identity?