Foreign Affairs Committee on May 9th, 2023

[Stephen Burridge]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd have to come back to you on the number of individuals who have applied for delisting, but I think it's important to clarify that when we're talking about inadmissibility, we really are talking about those individuals and entities that have specifically been listed.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Perhaps erroneously. It happens.

[Stephen Burridge]

Right, but the point is that sanctions against a country, which can include things like an import ban or an export ban, don't mean, by virtue of having those sanctions on the country, that any individual from that country is inadmissible to Canada. It really is based on the listing of the individual or the entity specifically under our autonomous sanctions regime or through the UN.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

However, we have examples of people being put on no-fly lists, for example, because of mistaken identity and because they shared....

Is there that risk? Do we have a risk of that happening?

[Stephen Burridge]

As I mentioned before, Canada is very judicious in its approach to applying sanctions. We undertake very careful due diligence to look at not just the impacts on the individuals or entities that we're listing, but the impacts on Canadians or Canadian businesses.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

This would be an appeal, because the judiciousness may not have worked.

I think I'm out of time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you.

We now go to Mr. Genuis. You have five minutes.

It's Mr. Epp.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to follow up where I left off earlier on the concept of ministerial discretion. Bill S-8 is the framework that links together IRPA, the Citizenship Act and the Emergencies Act, closes loopholes and links sanctions and inadmissibility. It also adds ministerial discretion.

We're trying to be precise and get all of that in. What's the purpose of adding ministerial discretion? What would be an example of when something like that would be in the national interest?

[Kelly Acton]

I'll invite Mr. Bush to unpack that a bit, to get to the heart of your question.

[Brett Bush]

I think Mr. Epp is referring back to the comments from the minister earlier this morning. We need to be clear about a couple of things.

First, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act already links certain provisions of SEMA to admissibility. What this bill is proposing to do is link the last two remaining pieces from SEMA to an admissibility regime, so that the government can have confidence that when it is sanctioning a group of people by name, they would also be inadmissible for travel into Canada.

The discretion comes with the listing process. It will also make it clear and more straightforward for our officers to be able to deal with the admissibility concerns of an individual who is listed, because it will be clear that once they are listed in SEMA, period, they will be inadmissible to Canada.

I would—

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

Thank you.

I'm going to turn the rest of my time over to my colleague, Mr. Hoback.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm curious. When this legislation comes into force, are there individuals in Canada who would have to be removed immediately?

[Brett Bush]

There are none that I'm aware of.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

There are none that you're aware of.

Are there individuals with visas who are not in Canada and who would have their visas revoked?

[Saman Fradette]

There are none that we're aware of at this time.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Is it possible to have an individual sanctioned but the country itself not necessarily be on a concern list?

[Kelly Acton]

GAC, again, on the application of sanctions, if you could....

[Stephen Burridge]

Again, as I mentioned earlier, individuals and entities are specifically listed under our autonomous sanctions regime. Also, under UN sanctions, when individuals are listed, they are specifically named. I would say that, from a practical perspective with regard to individuals coming to Canada because of the dealings ban, it would be very difficult for Canadians to actually interact with them, because they would be violating sanctions. With regard to the point of my colleague's—

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Let me use an example: a drug lord out of South America. The country may not be a problem, but that drug lord could be a problem. Could you see that person's being sanctioned in this scenario?

[Stephen Burridge]

I don't want to hypothesize on potential sanctions and get ahead of any decisions of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, but certainly, we look at every case very carefully. Like I said, it's a judicious approach.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

The Minister of Foreign Affairs would make the decision, then, in this scenario. Is that what you're saying?

[Stephen Burridge]

I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question, please?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

You're saying that the Minister of Foreign Affairs would make a decision in this type of scenario.

[Stephen Burridge]

Ultimately, sanctions recommendations are put forward to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who would decide on presenting a recommendation to the Governor in Council, who ultimately would sign off on a sanctions listing.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Okay, so you would do the grunt work, for lack of a better term. Then, the minister would look at the information and decide accordingly.

With regard to property that's being held in Canada by somebody who goes on the sanctions list, would you actually be taking any actions against that property? Would you be seizing it? What happens in those scenarios?