Foreign Affairs Committee on May 16th, 2023

[Richard St Marseille, Director General, Immigration Policy and External Review, Canada Border Services Agency]

Thank you for the question.

With respect to the proposed amendment and the questions you have raised, it's important to note that, in our view, there's a bit of misinterpretation by some former witnesses. As pointed out by some members of the committee, the reference to “country” has existed in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for nearly 20 years now. It's not the case that we apply that inadmissibility to all citizens or nationals of that country. That's just simply not the case.

In terms of the concrete reality, if you look at the United Nations Security Council travel bans that Canada has agreed to impose, where they list countries and individuals, there are 290 individuals on that list of the United Nations Security Council. Since 2017, only 10 have been refused entry to Canada. We've never interpreted it as applying to all nationals of a country.

The amendment as proposed would actually narrow the inadmissibility that currently exists in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. That's the answer to one of your questions.

With respect to definitions, sanctions inadmissibility in the IRPA is directly referenced by the other statutes. These are the Special Economic Measures Act, for instance, or the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act. Under IRPA, we do not apply any different definitions to those terms. It's what's in those other acts that results in someone being sanctioned, and then by operation of law, more or less, they are found inadmissible if they choose to come to Canada and their admissibility is assessed.

I hope that addresses your question.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

It did. It provided a lot of clarity in our discussion, I would say. Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Garnett Genuis]

Thank you, Mr. Zuberi.

We'll now go to Mr. Sarai.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Zuberi asked my question, so I'm okay. Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Garnett Genuis]

Thank you.

Next we'll have Mr. Epp.

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

Thank you.

We took a look at the very same issue. We took a look at potentially.... One of the criticisms we heard was defining the word “entity”. I think that's the other thing that we're trying to get at. We took a look at adding it to the IRPA at the beginning and then allowing the clause in this section, “entity does not include a foreign state” as referring only to section 35.

Can you comment on whether that's the better route to go: to define “entity” within the IRPA as it is defined in SEMA? I think that is what we're trying to get to. We're all on the same page, I think. We're just trying to figure out how we get there.

Then we'd be excluding “entity”, specifically within section 35, as defined in Bill S-8.

[Richard St Marseille]

Thank you for the question.

With respect to definitions, it's important that it's not only about the Special Economic Measures Act. If you look at paragraph 35(1)(c) of the IRPA as it exists today, it doesn't actually limit the imposition of sanctions to that one act. For instance, there's also the United Nations Act, which is used to impose some United Nations Security Council sanctions and travel bans.

If you're looking at definitional requirements, it's best to place those, in our view, in the statutes that have the authorities to generate those sanctions to begin with, and not in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Garnett Genuis]

Mr. Epp, do you have further questions, or have you finished with your time?

Thank you.

We'll go to Ms. McPherson.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, I don't have my hand up.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Garnett Genuis]

I'm sorry. It was up earlier.

Are there any others wishing to speak on this?

Go ahead, Mr. Oliphant.

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

I would just give a “thank you” to the officials. On technical issues like this, their advice is very important to be followed. I don't think it's partisan advice. I think it's really making sure that our legislation is clear and in line with our UN obligations, which they know far better than I do.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Garnett Genuis]

Thank you, Mr. Oliphant.

Go ahead, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a question for the officials.

What is the definition of the word « country » in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act?

[Richard St Marseille]

Thank you for the question.

There is no definition of “country” in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. That's one point.

That in and of itself doesn't affect the administration of the inadmissibility provisions, however, because the sanction is imposed by the Governor in Council or whatever instrument is provided in those other statutes, for instance, the Special Economic Measures Act or the United Nations Act.

For immigration purposes, there is no different definition from what is provided in the statute that allows the government to impose the sanction in the first place. There is no definition, but we also don't apply any definitions, either.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

In that case, it would be a good idea to use the expression "foreign state" like we are proposing, as that would clarify things for many people. This is not a partisan debate and we are trying to do the best job we can.

We think using the expression "foreign state" is the right way to go. That is why I think the Bloc amendment is better than the NDP amendment. Our amendment makes it clearer by using the term "foreign state," whereas the NDP amendment eliminates the reference to a state.

Don't you think this is the right thing to do?

[Richard St Marseille]

I will make one comment, and then, if I may, Mr. Chair, turn to my colleague, Scott Nesbitt.

With respect to the definitional issues, the one thing that is very important to note is that any time there's a definition in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that doesn't perfectly align with the enabling sanction-imposing statute, you have imposed a new test for immigration officials to apply, which somewhat undermines the intent of this bill.

The intent of this bill is to align sanctions-issuing provisions with immigration inadmissibility-issuing provisions. If you impose any definitional issues, or any definitions that don't perfectly mirror those statutes, you're introducing greater complexity and an extra administrative decision for immigration officials, which wouldn't be the case if the definitions perfectly aligned amongst all of those statutes.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Garnett Genuis]

The general practice we follow during clause-by-clause is that members retain the floor even as they are asking questions to officials, so they don't need to come back.

Are you finished, though, for the moment, or do you have more questions?

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

I've finished. Thank you, that's considerate. It was a reflex, I'm a polite person, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Garnett Genuis]

Thank you.

Mr. Zuberi is next.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Very briefly, and I don't want to extend this discussion. Essentially, the term “country”, even if it's not defined in the legislation in question, still has a concrete definition that is well-worn, recognized and understood by any engagement with the legislation, as you said, over the last 20 years. Is that correct?

[Richard St Marseille]

Yes. Do you want to take this question, Scott?

[Scott Nesbitt]

Yes, that's a very fair point. There is no expressed definition in the act, but as with any legislation, a term is going to be interpreted, having regard to its purpose and context.

The purpose and context here is all about implementing multilateral sanctions, primarily United Nations Security Council resolutions. To be clear, there are 15 United Nations Security Council resolutions right now that impose sanctions. Of those 15, it's absolutely crystal clear that 11 of them are sanctions against countries. There's no doubt that those 11 sanctions are imposed against countries and, thus, would trigger paragraph 35(1)(c) as it currently exists, or proposed paragraph 35.1(1)(a) as it would be amended by Bill S-8.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Is there no ambiguity, from your perspective, with the term “country?”

[Scott Nesbitt]

No, not as it's used.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you.