Evidence of meeting #65 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was individuals.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
Sameer Zuberi Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, Canada and the world are watching what's happening overseas now, in the Middle East.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
Sameer Zuberi Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
I think we can all agree that we are quite disturbed by the violence occurring there.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
Sameer Zuberi Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
You're interrupting me. You don't have the floor, either.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
That's fine, but this is not the time for a point of order, because he's brought a motion to adjourn.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
Sameer Zuberi Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
My point is that this is an important study and we should be studying this.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
11:15 a.m.
Some hon. members
No.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
We will have to put it to a vote.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 3)
Now we will go back to Senator Harder.
Senator, thank you for being here with us today. You have five minutes for your opening remarks. When you only have 30 seconds remaining, I will hold this up. That is true not only for your opening remarks, but also when members ask you questions.
Senator Harder, the floor is yours.
11:15 a.m.
Peter Harder Senator, Ontario, PSG
Thank you, Chair. I hope I don't use all of my five minutes, but I appreciate your signals.
This is an “S” bill, which means it originated in the Senate. It is a government bill, and it is not unusual for government bills to be tabled first in the Senate, although it's not a practice that takes place often. This bill was first introduced on May 17 of last year in the Senate and dealt with at second reading on May 19. It went to committee for consideration on June 3 and June 9.
We heard from approximately 19 witnesses, from both officials and other interested groups, and returned the bill with one technical amendment, which coordinated this bill with another bill that was before this chamber at that time, Bill C-21. The final reading took place on June 16, and Bill S-8 was unanimously accepted in our chamber, and hence sent here.
The bill before you is viewed from our chamber as an urgent piece of legislation, a necessary piece of legislation, which allows for sanction-related inadmissibility grounds to be treated in a cohesive and coherent manner. It will strengthen inadmissibility legislation that we already have in place, rendering designated persons who are subject to Government of Canada sanctions inadmissible.
In addition to that, it has further coordinating mechanisms that are important in the view of the government. I believe you had the officials from departments concerned here. I would urge this committee to deal with this bill expeditiously so that this gap in admissibility can be addressed. This is not only urgent with respect to Russian nationals, but it is universal, so it will deal with nationals of other sanctioned regimes, including, obviously, Iran.
I'm open for questions.
Again, the sponsor's role in the Senate is to shepherd the legislation through the Senate and in committee, and to work with colleagues and, ultimately, the government to ensure that the bill's carriage is both appropriately timed and succinctly and appropriately addressed by the Senate of Canada.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity. Usually we have the benefit of the House of Commons reflection before we get a bill. Now you have the opportunity for what we call “sober second thought”.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Thank you, Senator.
We will now open it to questions from the members.
Mr. Hoback, you are first.
In this round, each member will be provided with four minutes.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Senator Harder, for being here today.
Senator Harder, from what I can see of this, it's just mainly housekeeping and cleaning up to bring things in line, but there's one area that looks to be an oversight. Maybe I'm missing something, so I'll ask you about it.
It's on page 2 of Bill S-8. You are removing paragraphs 35(1)(c) to (e), and paragraph 35(1)(c.1) reads, “having engaged in conduct that would, in the opinion of the Minister, constitute an offence under section 240.1 of the Criminal Code”. Then, if you go to section 240.1 of the Criminal Code, it relates to trafficking in human organs and removal without informed consent.
Why would we take that out? Is it encompassed somewhere else?
11:20 a.m.
Senator, Ontario, PSG
It is my understanding—and I'm not the official responsible—that the prohibition is included in the coordinating legislation to which I referred, which would add transnational border criminality to the existing grounds for inadmissibility or detention. Therefore, it is captured in the coordinating approach this bill is designed to achieve.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
That makes sense. That was my guess. I just wanted to confirm that.
Mr. Epp, do you want to take the rest of my time?
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Dave Epp Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Again, thank you, Senator Harder.
[Member spoke in German]
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Dave Epp Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON
Just for the benefit of others, that was a Low German dialect that the senator and I share.
You said you had 19 witnesses in front of the Senate. Obviously, you've become comfortable with some of the criticisms of the bill. Some of the criticisms that have come our way have been around the definition, or lack thereof, of “sanctions”.
Does the Senate feel that the definitions are appropriately captured in other legislation?
11:20 a.m.
Senator, Ontario, PSG
I'm glad you didn't repeat the whole question in Low German, because my response would have been a little more tardy.
The Senate took the view that this bill is about closing the gaps in existing measures. That was the view taken by all senators, including many who are strong advocates of refugee protection.
We, as the Senate foreign affairs committee, have just completed a review of the Sergei Magnitsky Law, as required by the five-year review process, and we will very shortly be issuing a report that deals with some of the broader issues, including ones you've raised. I hope that gives an opportunity for this committee, and the Senate itself, to reflect on the recommendations that we've come forward with.
