Foreign Affairs Committee on May 16th, 2023

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Garnett Genuis]

—you can move dilatory motions, but you cannot move substantive motions.

I'll recognize Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe now.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

As I have the floor, I would like to move that we move to another order of business, please, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Garnett Genuis]

I'd like to offer, maybe, a little bit more explanation.

For every committee meeting, an agenda is distributed, and we seek to follow that agenda. When there's committee business scheduled, members can move any motion without notice. If an item is not on the agenda, if a motion is on notice, members may move that item on notice when they have the floor, provided that there isn't another item on the table for consideration.

We are under consideration of clause 6. I offered the floor to Ms. McPherson for discussion on clause 6, but in light of the fact that she is going far afield of the topic, I—

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, I was asking you a question, and it's very reasonable to ask a question of the chair. If you would like me to go with my NDP-1, I'm more than happy to, but your not responding to my question is inappropriate.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Garnett Genuis]

Ms. McPherson, we are debating clause 6. This is Bill S‑8, and we're debating clause 6. This isn't question period. I'm the chair of the committee—

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I think you're very aware that we do this very often in committee, Garnett. You're being a little unreasonable to be perfectly honest.

I'm happy to move my NDP‑1, and I would certainly hope that you would be willing to let us debate the motion, because, as you know, you've brought many motions forward during committee meetings. It's not always during committee business.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Garnett Genuis]

It's not up to me, but if you're prepared to move NDP‑1.... Is that your intention to move NDP‑1?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Certainly.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Garnett Genuis]

Okay. Ms. McPherson, go ahead please.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

NDP‑1 is an attempt to define “entity” within the bill. We heard from a number of different experts that they were concerned about it. Bill S‑8 proposes to establish a distinct ground of inadmissibility based on sanctions, namely sanctions imposed on a “country, entity or person”.

As we heard from the Canadian Bar Association, the Refugee Centre and other witnesses, they recommend removing the reference to “country” because it is too far-reaching and the implications on others would be too risky, and they would limit the sanctions to an entity or person. They also recommended that “entity” be clearly defined to exclude a country or foreign state.

We also want to ensure that the sanctions in this bill are defined as many witnesses asked. The main concern was that “sanctions” should not include economic measures imposed on a foreign state. We believe that the removal of “country” from proposed section 35.1, which is the subject of this amendment, would accomplish that. That's exactly why we're moving this particular amendment.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Garnett Genuis]

Thank you, Ms. McPherson.

I do want to advise that there was some discussion around the admissibility of this amendment. My view is that the amendment is admissible, so we'll proceed on it. Of course, that's always subject to a possible appeal to the Speaker if there are those who think I made the wrong decision.

If this amendment is adopted, it will preclude the Bloc amendment, which was distributed this morning, from being moved.

I will now open the speakers list if there is further debate. I have Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe and Mr. Oliphant. If any others want to speak, please indicate that.

We'll start with Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree with the NDP's proposal, but, with respect, I think the Bloc Québécois amendment is much more specific and comprehensive. I suggest that the Committee reject the NDP amendment and accept the Bloc Québécois amendment.

I don't want to create a squabble either, but I think our amendment, which is much more specific, is along the same lines as the NDP amendment. It does not change the spirit of the bill at all. If the NDP's amendment is found to be in order, so is the Bloc Québécois' amendment. I would argue that ours is more focused and more precise. For this type of bill, it would be better to adopt the Bloc Québécois amendment.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Garnett Genuis]

Thank you, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

Mr. Oliphant.

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

First, I would like to hear, from the legislative clerks, his or her opinion on the admissibility of this amendment. Then I would like to retain the floor and talk about it. However, I'd like to hear their comments on whether or not they believed and advised the chair that it was admissible or inadmissible, based on their extensive experience as legislative clerks.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Garnett Genuis]

Thank you, Mr. Oliphant. I have no objection if the legislative clerk is comfortable providing that.

Whatever you prefer....

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

I think they are clerks to the committee, Mr. Chair, and not to the chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Garnett Genuis]

It's exactly the offer I made.

[Marie-Hélène Sauvé, Legislative Clerk]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In analyzing this amendment, it seemed to us that the objective of Bill S‑8 was to expand the scope of inadmissibility based on sanctions to not just a country but also an entity or a person. This amendment seeks to reduce the scope of inadmissibility, so in our view, it went against the principle of the bill.

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

I would agree with you. It's been ruled by the chair as admissible, which I don't think is correct. However, I won't challenge the chair on that. Your point is extremely important, because on this side, we won't be supporting either the NDP's amendment on this section or the Bloc's. We actually think it does change the bill and is contrary to the nature of the bill, which was meant to expand the government's ability, Canada's ability, to keep the bad people out. That's exactly what we're trying to do.

Bill S-8, if amended, would delete the reference to “country” in the proposed new paragraph and would add the clarification that an entity does not include a foreign state. The proposed amendment would unduly limit the scope of inadmissibility provisions. It would mean that, contrary to the provision that has been in place for the last 20 years, foreign nationals would not be inadmissible if they were subject to a travel ban, included as part of sanctions imposed against a country. This would put Canada in breach of its obligations to implement such sanctions, including travel restrictions imposed by the United Nations.

We have strong legal concerns, which are coming from two departments, as well as a parliamentary concern coming from the legislative clerk that this changes the nature of the bill, so we would be voting against this amendment. I believe if it were to fail, it would probably negate the Bloc one as well—although I have never been sure of that rule.

However, we want to keep Canada as safe as possible. We want to limit admissibility when people have been sanctioned, and I think this amendment is contrary to this.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Garnett Genuis]

Thank you, Mr. Oliphant.

Next, I have Ms. McPherson, followed by Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you.

This is a response to Mr. Oliphant's comments. My concern is that this is an amendment that is being brought forward by legal experts to limit the potential for unintended harm. The Canadian Bar Association, obviously, would have some pretty strong understanding of the legal requirements.

From my perspective, this is doing what we can to ensure that, as you say, the bad guys don't come to Canada, but it's also giving us protection so that we are not having unintended consequences on those who are not guilty. It's providing more clarity, so there is more understanding. That's my perspective on that.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Garnett Genuis]

Thank you, Ms. McPherson.

We'll now proceed to Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Many witnesses asked for clarification of certain terms, including "countries" and "entities," and in some cases even for the removal of the word "country." The latter term may be too broad a reference, whereas "foreign state" is used in legislation related to sanctions, such as the Special Economic Measures Act and the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, or Sergei Magnitsky Act. The term "foreign state" is clearly defined in them.

I don't think anyone here questions the wording of the Sergei Magnitsky Act. I even often hear members of all parties using it as an example. If we want to be serious, I think we could build on what is already defined in some legislation internationally, and even domestically.

As far as we know, the word "entity" is also not defined in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, whereas it is, as I've indicated, in various statutes dealing with sanctions. We are simply adding more clarification without changing the essence of Bill S‑8.

My colleague Mr. Oliphant just gave a demonstration in his argument, but I would be curious to know if he is able to explain the difference between "country" and "foreign state." Perhaps that would help us understand the Liberal point of view a bit. Right now, I'm convinced that our proposal will really define things better and only improve the bill, and, more importantly, make it more precise.

In my opinion, the essence of the bill is not affected at all by these amendments. I understand that we are still debating the NDP amendment, but I am convinced that the Bloc Québécois amendment is more precise.

As I said with all due respect to Ms. McPherson, this is not a disavowal at all, but I think it is a good idea to clarify things because the witnesses came to the Committee and explained that we needed to do this. It is our role as parliamentarians to listen to what is being said when the experts speak to us and to act accordingly when it comes time to vote on amendments and subamendments.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Garnett Genuis]

Thank you very much.

We'll now proceed to Mr. Zuberi.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To the civil servants, first, I would like some clarity on NDP-1, which is the amendment we're debating right now, in terms of what impact it would have on the number of individuals who would be admissible to Canada if we made this amendment.

Second, is with regard to the term “country”. Can you provide some insight as to whether there is any interlocking with other legislative instruments, with the term “country” in particular?