Foreign Affairs Committee on May 16th, 2023

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Garnett Genuis]

Good morning, colleagues. It's 11 o'clock.

Welcome to meeting number 66 of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

I intend to dispense with the usual reading of the hybrid rules.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, February 13, 2023, the committee is resuming consideration of Bill S-8.

I'm very pleased to welcome officials from various departments. They are going to be supporting our consideration at the clause-by-clause stage. If members are interested, I can review the rules around clause-by-clause, but I'm also happy to dispense with those, given that we've dealt with clause-by-clause fairly recently.

Is there any member who wishes us to review the clause-by-clause rules?

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I would like it because it was a little bit shaky the last time.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Garnett Genuis]

That's okay, Mr. Oliphant. I will go through those.

As the name indicates, this is an examination of—

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Excuse me. I'd like to request the floor, Mr. Genuis.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Garnett Genuis]

Ms. McPherson, is it a point of order?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I'd like to request the floor to move a motion, please.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Garnett Genuis]

We're doing clause-by-clause on Bill S-8 right now, so unless it's a point of order, I'll be proceeding.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I will take a point of order then. I would like to move a motion to resume debate on the motion I brought forward on Thursday, May 11, the motion that was distributed on Thursday, April 20.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Garnett Genuis]

I'm sorry, Ms. McPherson. You can't move a motion on a point of order, so I'll proceed.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I asked for the floor. I would like the floor so that I can move that motion, please, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Garnett Genuis]

Thank you for expressing that, Ms. McPherson. We have an agenda for this meeting, which is clause-by-clause of Bill S-8.

I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there is an amendment to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill or in the package each member received from the clerk.

There is an additional amendment from our friends in the Bloc this morning, so just take note of that. That will be considered, as well, in due course.

Members should note that the amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee. Each amendment has been given an alphanumeric number in the top right corner to indicate which party submitted it. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once an amendment is moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment to an amendment is moved, it is voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title and on the bill itself. Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. That report contains only the text of any adopted amendments, as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

Those are the clause-by-clause rules.

I will now proceed to call clause 1.

(Clause 1 agreed to)

(Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 5)

We're now on clause 5, for which I believe there is an amendment.

We'll start with G-1.

Mr. Oliphant, go ahead, please.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I noted during our discussion on the bill, there is a coordinating amendment that we feel would be required because of the previous passing of another Senate bill that affects the same area of this bill.

I would move that Bill S-8, in clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 33 and 34 on page 2 with the following:

5 (1) Paragraph 35(1)(c) of the Act is repealed.

(1.1) Subsection 35(1) of the Act is amended by adding “or” at the end of paragraph (b) and by repealing paragraphs (d) and (e).

That is the amendment. It is meant to be a technical coordinating amendment, on the advice of legislative counsel.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Garnett Genuis]

Thank you, Mr. Oliphant.

I want to note that if G-1 is adopted CPC-1 cannot be moved.

Mr. Epp.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a question for clarification at this point.

I note that CPC-1 and G-1, I believe, are trying to correct the same omission, and I'll give credit to Mr. Hoback's office for discovering this.

I have a question to Mr. Oliphant.

Is paragraph 35(1)(c.1) remaining or being repealed? To me, that is the section that refers back to the coordinating amendment from S-223 and refers to section 240.1 of the Criminal Code and must remain. Is it clear that it is being retained in Bill S-8?

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I'm going to turn to the law clerk on that one.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Garnett Genuis]

You didn't have the floor, but we'll go the law clerk, please, or the officials if that's more appropriate.

[Stephen Burridge, Director, Sanctions Policy and Operations Coordination, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development]

I'll ask Scott Nesbitt to take that.

[Scott Nesbitt, General Counsel, Department of Justice, Legal Services Unit, Canada Border Services Agency]

The proposed amendment is to retain the new paragraph 35(1)(c.1) to avoid the inadvertent repeal of that provision.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Garnett Genuis]

Is there further discussion on amendment G-1?

Mr. Epp, did you want to speak?

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

It's just a comment and you can rule me out of order, Mr. Chair.

I'm a little surprised that this omission made it this far. We're in committee after having gone through the Senate so I'm not quite sure. I'm still relatively new to this game. I'm wondering how this omission came about? It's more of a question of ignorance on my part.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

My understanding is that it's fairly normal. When two bills are being considered concurrently and they're dealing with the same act this can happen. The good thing is that the officials catch it and tell us that, you've just done this on this act... What was it? Bill S-221 or S-226...?

[Stephen Burridge]

It's Bill S-223.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

It's Bill S-223. I got my numbers mixed up. Sometimes bills leapfrog each other, but I don't think it's that unusual. I've had it five or six times in committee.

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

I have one more question to the officials then. It is very clear through G-1 that both foreign nationals and permanent residents are deemed to be in scope of inadmissibility through the provisions from Bill S-223. Is that correct?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Garnett Genuis]

This was a question for the officials.

Is somebody preparing to answer?