Foreign Affairs Committee on May 11th, 2023

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

I assume that concern also relates, then, to the definition of “entity” or “state entity”?

[Peter Harder]

That's correct, although I should say that we want legislation that is broadly permissive of government to rapidly act under regulation to deal with emerging entities.

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

Thank you.

The bill also shifts ministerial discretion from the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship to the Minister of Public Safety. Can you comment as to why the Senate is comfortable with that shift?

[Peter Harder]

It's because border access is under the Minister of Public Safety. Therefore, we're trying to ensure that the front line is appropriately addressing the issues for which it is responsible.

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

Concerns have come to our attention about the cost of redress or the availability of redress if people captured for inadmissibility are captured under sanctions. Do you have any comments?

[Peter Harder]

Redress is available through the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who has responsibility for the naming of individuals, and that redress mechanism is available.

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

Thank you. I believe I'm out of time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you very much.

We now go to Mr. Sarai.

You have four minutes.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Senator, for coming and appearing before us on this very important bill.

Senator, we know that the legislation was first introduced in the Senate, as you mentioned earlier, before making its way to the House. Has the Senate made any significant amendments to the original bill?

[Peter Harder]

The Senate made one technical amendment, which was a coordinating amendment with regard to Bill C-21, to ensure that whichever bill was enacted first, there was a complementarity of action allowed. However, we made no other amendments, nor were any proposed, either in committee or on the floor of the chamber.

The view of the Senate was that this was urgent, necessary and not to be done quickly, which we did a year ago.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Thank you.

Senator, we're starting the study of this bill. Are there any elements of this bill, based on your experience, that we should pay attention to?

[Peter Harder]

I believe that the responsibility of.... I cannot claim what the responsibility of the House of Commons is, but in the view of the Senate, the obligation we have is to close the loopholes that are identified and to secure the inadmissibility regime that we have put in place, which has been and is being tested. We would be very supportive of early implementation.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Thank you.

In your speech during the second reading of Bill S-8 in the Senate, you stated that, under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, most individuals sanctioned pursuant to the Special Economic Measures Act may nevertheless have unfettered access to travel to, enter or remain in Canada if they are not otherwise admissible. Why is it the case that individuals sanctioned under SEMA can still travel to, enter or remain in Canada, and how does Bill S-8 specifically address this issue?

[Peter Harder]

They are not inadmissible under the law as it exists without this amendment, so what we are seeking to do—what the government is seeking to do—is to ensure that inadmissibility takes place at the front line, early in the possible admission process. As you well know, once an individual passes that initial security check and border official, there are new processes in place for removal, so we are seeking to ensure that inadmissibility is strengthened at the front line.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Are you aware of anyone who has travelled to, entered or remained in Canada—

[Peter Harder]

I am not, but I did ask that question of officials at that time, and they said that a small number have, in fact. I didn't press it further for precise numbers.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

You also, in your speech, explained that the bill aims to remove ministerial relief for individuals inadmissible due to sanctions, as well as their ability to appeal to the immigration appeal division. Others, like the CBA, the Canadian Bar Association, have argued that it should provide a legitimate avenue of redress, given the severe consequences of inadmissibility based on sanctions.

How do you respond to that, and what are your views with respect to that?

[Peter Harder]

It is the view expressed in this bill, and hence by the Senate, that sanctioned individuals ought to go through the appeal process—which is the sanctioning process, in which the minister responsible is the foreign minister—not through existing immigration processes, which go before the Immigration and Refugee Board.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Sarai.

We now go to Mr. Bergeron. You have four minutes, sir.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

First of all, Mr. Chair, I'd like to tell you how completely flabbergasted I am by what just happened. There are people dying in Palestine, there are people dying in Israel, and this committee has chosen to adjourn debate on a motion that asks that we address this issue. I can't understand why this decision was made. I can explain why the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development has decided to adjourn debate on what's happening right now in Israel and Palestine.

I'm completely overwhelmed, Mr. Chair. I know you're going to call me to order, and you'll be right to do so, but I'm outraged that the very person who moved this motion to adjourn and thought it was so important to hear from the witness today, took off immediately after the vote. I find that unconscionable. I'm totally—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Mr. Bergeron—

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

I know, Mr. Chair, you're absolutely right to call me to order, but I had no choice but to say so. I find it unacceptable, totally unacceptable.

I'm completely overcome, but I will proceed anyway, because that is what the committee has decided.

Senator, I'm sorry you had to go through that for a few seconds. I thank you for being with us.

The first thing I asked the minister when we met with him last week was why it was decided to go through the Senate. He explained to me that it was a matter of mechanics and that it made it easier to move the bill forward.

You might want to enlighten me on the process, Senator. Since there are no Liberal senators in the Senate, everything seems a little byzantine to me. I'm having a little trouble understanding the mechanics. I must admit that I'm even more confused by the mechanics because you're the one before us this morning, when according to the parliamentary website, Senator Mark Gold is sponsoring the bill.

Can you shed some light on this? How is it that today you're considered sponsor of this government bill, even though you are not a government senator? Please explain it to me.

[Peter Harder]

I'd be happy to.

It's good that we have an early opportunity to engage in a bicameral way on what the processes are, particularly as the Senate of Canada has evolved to a less partisan, more independent approach.

The first point I would make is it is rare that the government introduces a bill in the Senate for first consideration. That is why “S” bills are few in number. They cannot be bills that have any financial obligation attached to them. They are often used on matters that are viewed as important, urgent and not controversial. For example, free trade agreements have been introduced in the Senate first.

This bill was introduced in the Senate a year ago. The government felt that the agenda in the House of Commons was so charged and the bill was so necessary to signal the direction the government wished to go in inadmissibility, so they used the Senate. Again, it is not often, but it is not without precedent.

In the Senate we have a government representative, of which I was once one. For the four years from 2016-20, I served as the government representative. That's the senator who is overall responsible for the management of the government's agenda in the Senate. As a privy councillor they work with cabinet directly in terms of the legislative agenda, particularly as it references the Senate. I'm not in that role. I have not been since 2020.

For each bill in the Senate, the government representative seeks a sponsor. Unusually, it could be somebody within the government representative office. Usually it's not. I was the first executive director of the Immigration and Refugee Board. I was the first deputy minister of citizenship and immigration. I was, before I left government, the deputy minister of foreign affairs. I had some familiarity with the tools and mechanisms of what we were dealing with here. Because of my interest in this area, I thought it would be appropriate and interesting to sponsor this bill.

As I indicated in my opening remarks, the sponsor's role is to advance the bill and to work with colleagues to ensure that the appropriate witnesses are heard and that the bill proceeds at a pace that wins the support of colleagues. In this case, the bill was dealt with rather expeditiously, having been introduced on May 17 and ultimately having achieved third reading, I believe, on June 16.

It is completely normal that we seek sponsors across the aisle. In my time, even a Conservative senator sponsored a government bill, which is an indication of how much less partisan our chamber is. I make no comparators, except to assert that we are comfortable with that approach.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Senator.

Mr. Bergeron, we're two minutes and 20 seconds over.

Madam McPherson, you have four minutes.