Debates of June 13th, 2023

Immigration and Refugee Act

[An hon. member]

And boy did you complain.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite said I complained. In fact, the record will clearly show that I stood up, even when I was in opposition, and said that time allocation is a necessary tool in order to get legislation passed. It is unfortunate that, at times, some opposition parties feel that it does not matter whether they support the legislation or how timely the legislation might be; it is more important to use legislation in virtually all situations as a mechanism to prevent the government from passing legislation.

Bill S-8 is legislation that should be, relatively speaking, non-controversial. If we take a look at the issue of human rights violations and canvass our constituents about it, a vast majority would be very upset at the notion of the human rights violations taking place anywhere in the world. I would suggest that over 95% of them would be upset.

I am very proud of the fact that, a few years back, we established a human rights museum in my home city of Winnipeg. For many residents, this amplifies the issue of human rights.

We have had members of Parliament, both today and in the past, who have been strong advocates in fighting against those who inflict human rights violations, whether it is an individual, a state or any other organization taking away basic human rights. I think of such individuals as Irwin Cotler and David Matas, whom I had the honour and privilege to know, at least in part, and whose passion I was able to see. I heard them articulate why it is so important that, no matter which political party one belongs to, we get behind it as legislators and do what we can. Ideally, we should do so collectively.

I think of the Magnitsky act and the push to ultimately get that into law. As members will know, one can come up with an idea, but it can sometimes be a challenge to put it into law. Fortunately, through the support of all parties inside the House, through a private member's bill, we were ultimately able to make that happen. The desire was there, and justifiably so.

Take a look at Canada and the world. I will direct this point to the speaker before me. Canada's population is about 38 million people, yet look at the positioning that Canada has around the world among the 150-plus countries and states. Canada carries a great deal of influence throughout the world. We are a country in very high demand, in terms of people wanting to come to Canada. We constantly get people coming on visits to Ottawa to meet with parliamentarians, civil society and different organizations. We have organizations scattered throughout the country that provide all forms of humanitarian aid for countries around the world.

I believe that Canada is a leader in many different areas, including the area of human rights. It is something that we can all take a sense of pride and ownership in, I would suggest, no matter what political party we are part of. We see that in some of the legislative debates that we have had. I have always appreciated having debate and the take-note debate, for example, in regard to what is taking place in Ukraine. When we talk about the sanctions in Bill S-8, the bill would ensure that there is a direct consequence to individuals who have been sanctioned by the government, so that they will never be able to enter Canada. If members look at past emergency debates or the take-note debate on the issue of Ukraine alone, members would find that there have been many hours spent debating it over the years.

I was in opposition in 2014, when there was the uprising that was taking place in the Maidan, or Independence Square, in Kyiv. I had the opportunity to go over there on a visit and witness some of the things first-hand, as I know many of my colleagues have done.

I have heard the horror stories about the human rights violations that are taking place, whether by the Russian regime or the Iranian regime. It is terrifying. The discrimination based on gender is disgusting, not to mention the atrocities with regard to issues of torture, such as a war that is ongoing and unjustified.

That is why we have this legislation. From my perspective, it is a complement to the Magnitsky Act. We are saying we want to ensure that there are sanctions against these people who are causing all these issues of a horrific nature, but not only that, Bill S-8 says that we do not want them in Canada. I think that is a powerful statement. I think it adds value to what I suggest is Canada's place in the world, where we are reflecting true Canadian values, which are there to protect human rights. That is why, when I look at this particular piece of legislation, unless the Conservative Party or another party is opposing it, I do not necessarily see why we would cause a delay like the one we witnessed this morning.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague seems awfully pleased with how Canada is dealing with the human rights issue. We know that this is documented in Canada. Take, for example, the crisis in Iran. We know that there are Iranian nationals who are here and who are friends of the regime in Iran, a regime that is currently violating women's rights. I do not think that I need to paint a picture. There are some pretty horrific images making the rounds on social media.

With regard to China, the government is still tolerating Chinese police stations here in Canada. The RCMP's reports on that are contradictory. Recently, the mayor of Brossard told the media that a city councillor had been elected with the help of the Chinese regime on social media. The Brossard city council is extremely uncomfortable with that situation. The mayor talked about it in the paper. She was trying to find out from the RCMP what to do with one of her city councillors, who, as we know, was elected with the help of the Chinese government.

Could my colleague enlighten us on what is happening on that issue?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have absolute confidence in the system we have here in Canada. That includes our national police service and the security agencies that we have.

I believe it is up to those agencies and those law enforcement officers to do the work that is necessary; where they find violations, there would be charges, and offices would be shut down. I do not ever want to see Canada take a position where, for example, a few members stand up and say, “Well, that is this. Now we want the police to go and shut it down.”

We have to have confidence in our security agencies to ensure that our interests are best served.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, one of the things I have been very concerned about is whether our sanction regime is actually being enforced. The easy part of sanctions is to put people on the list. The hard part is to actually enforce those sanctions and to make sure that they are transparent and enforced, as well as that we are following through with action.

We know, because we heard testimony from the RCMP at the foreign affairs committee, that there are very few resources allocated to our sanction enforcement in this country.

Would the member agree that if the government is just putting names on a list and does not actually enforce those sanctions, it is just committing political theatre?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, let me add a different perspective.

When the government puts legislation in place, we cannot necessarily expect that, virtually overnight, everything will work the way in which people envisioned. We have to allow for other protocols to be put into place. At the end of the day, we hope those protocols ensure that it is meeting the objectives that were put in place, or believed to be there, when the legislation was enacted.

In other words, I think it might take time in order to put Canadians' desires into effect. It might take more than one or two years. We cannot just pass legislation and think that it is going to happen overnight.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to follow up on the point made by the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona. We should recognize that, when we talk about refugee protections in this place, we are normally talking about protecting people who need to come to Canada.

There is an option in this legislation, which is good for humanitarian exceptions, if somebody is otherwise inadmissible but has a profound case for why they should come to Canada.

This very significant legislation, which is important, would recognize that certain people, for human rights or criminal reasons, are not welcome in this country, are inadmissible and are under sanction. We need to follow up on making sure that if they are sanctioned, they do not come here.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I believe, ultimately, that we do not want anyone who has been sanctioned coming to Canada. That is the primary purpose and the objective of this legislation, or at least one of them.

To that end, I would expect that those who are responsible for the administration would understand what is being brought forward and passed by parliamentarians, which reflects the will of Canadians. Those responsible are our law enforcement agencies, our border control officers and our civil service, which is second to no other in the world.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to get my remarks on Bill S-8 in Hansard today.

We know this bill is about sanctions and the sanction regime of this country. Sanctions are an important tool the government can use to deal with bad actors in the world.

One thing to note about recognizing the sovereignty of nations, as we want our sovereignty to be recognized, is the reality that we cannot enforce our laws in other countries. What we can do, though, is deal with other countries as entire entities or with individuals if they choose to come to Canada.

There is a whole host of reasons we would use sanctions. Most often, as we have seen lately, countries that violate human rights are subject to Canadian sanctions. Countries that do not respect the borders of other countries also get sanctions. Countries that are threatening to Canada, although maybe not directly, would be sanctioned too. We also sanction individuals. We may sanction folks who have committed heinous crimes in other countries that our courts have no jurisdiction over.

This tool has been used for many years, and in my time here in Parliament, we have improved, enhanced and worked to increase the sanctioning abilities of Canada. I am talking about the Magnitsky act. When I first came here, the Magnitsky law was passed, and more recently the name was changed to the Magnitsky act to better reflect what we are talking about here.

Putting sanctions on particular countries is something the government has the power to do, and it does do that from time to time. One is banning folks from coming here. I do not know if members know this, but I am living under a sanction. I am one of the Canadians who have been banned from Russia. I do not think it was an overly effective sanction, as I was not planning to go to Russia anytime soon, but nonetheless, I am being sanctioned by Russia. In the same way, through sanctions, Canada will ban people coming from particular parts of the world from participating in Canadian society or visiting their family members who live in Canada. That is something Bill S-8 attempts to achieve. It would prevent folks on a sanctions list who are from a country being sanctioned from coming to and visiting Canada.

What is interesting about all of this is that it does not seem to be a problem. When folks came to the Senate committee, they noted that there did not appear to be any attempts by people who are sanctioned to try to come to Canada. In the same way, with me being sanctioned and made a persona non grata in Russia, there is no major threat of me breaking the sanction due to the fact that I am not planning to go to Russia anytime soon. Folks who are sanctioned by Canada often are not travelling to Canada. It was therefore noted at committee that this appears to be a solution in search of a problem. It appears the government is attempting to look like it is doing something when in fact there is no issue to be seen here.

This bill does theoretically ensure that folks who are under a sanction do not come to Canada, but at the same time, it gives dramatic leeway to the minister. Once again, this is where we run into trouble with the idea of the rule of law. The law should be written down so that folks are able to read it, and there should not be ambiguity in how it is enforced. When ministerial discretion is given to a minister, one case may be judged and ruled on differently than another, which is the challenge that folks have brought forward. This bill introduces some ambiguity as to who will be allowed into Canada and who will not be allowed into Canada.

I understand that there are times when we are challenged by the rule of law given that it is written rigidly. We can see that what is legal and what is right and just sometimes come into conflict. In that case, I imagine we could allow for ministerial discretion, but it will be a challenge for folks to bring this to the minister in a uniform way. Folks who are facing the same situation will depend on their connections and will depend on who they know in order to get an audience with the minister and get the minister's discretion to come into force, either to prevent folks from coming into Canada or to get around a particular sanction in a particular country.

There is some cause for concern that, once again, perhaps this is another piece of legislation where the rule of law is being undermined by ministerial discretion. We have seen this before with the Liberals. They do not necessarily do their homework when they are designing laws. They will put together a piece of legislation that says something nice at the very top and then turns out to be basically a blank piece of paper underneath. We have seen this before. Then they will say, “Trust us. We will write it in the regulations when we get to the regulations.”

We have seen this with their child care bill. We have seen this with their dental care program. We have also seen this with their disability benefit. The disability benefit regime is, in my opinion, probably the best case, or the worst case depending on how we look at it, to show how the government does not do the hard work of governing with legislation. Rather, it says, “We want to put this program in place, but trust us; we will get it right once we get there.”

We do not have any criteria on eligibility. We do not know who is going to get it. We do not know how this new program that is yet to be designed will impact the average Canadian. To some degree, that is what we see with Bill S-8 as well. It is governing by ministerial edict. It is governing without regard for what the law has written down.

All of that is a concern, but I want to bring this back to the point from folks at committee. They mentioned that there has not been, as far as they can tell, any attempt by somebody under Canadian sanctions to try to flout and get around those sanctions to come to Canada. That in particular is, I think, interesting since the government spent time on this bill.

The government will often accuse us, the Conservatives, of wasting time in this place. We are the official opposition. It is our job to scrutinize bills. It is our job to ensure that time is spent debating them, listening to Canadians from across the country with different perspectives and outlining problems that may be in legislation and problems that may be concerning to Canadians.

This is an interesting piece of legislation, as there has not been a case the government can point to, or a story, where somebody who has been under sanction has gained access to Canada through some of these measures. What I can say is that the government has let folks into Canada who have not been under sanction but who probably should not have come to Canada. I am thinking of one of the generals of the Sri Lankan army, who is responsible for a significant number of deaths in the Tamil community. The Tamil community was very upset that he was allowed in.

These are some of the things I am concerned about with this bill. I am looking forward to the discussion.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Peace River—Westlock. We both care deeply about this important issue that affects human rights.

To me, this bill is more important than ever.

On Saturday, I participated in a demonstration in support of women and girls in Iran. People told me that there should be sanctions against this religious regime, which keeps women in a state of subservience and inferiority.

This morning, I attended a meeting of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, standing in for my colleague, the foreign affairs critic. The topic was the conflict in Ukraine, with a focus on terrorist groups like the Wagner Group and the horrible crimes being committed. Witnesses talked about women being used as sexual weapons in this conflict between Ukraine and Russia.

It is important to take action and send a clear message. The sanctions need to work. Canada must not be a haven for these criminals.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think the member is talking about the use of sanctions. The use of sanctions is very important, but I do not think this bill affects the use of sanctions whatsoever.

We need to ensure that sanctions are put in place on the correct individuals and are then enforced. I am sanctioned by Russia in that I am not allowed to visit Russia, but that sanction is not necessarily of concern to me because I am not visiting Russia. In the same way, we sanction folks and say they are not welcome in Canada, but there do not seem to be many cases of folks who are banned from Canada attempting to access Canada.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, we have been very welcoming to the Ukrainian refugees fleeing the brutal invasion by Vladimir Putin's dictatorial regime. However, compared to many European countries, Canada is not taking in that many refugees.

The NDP believes we could be doing more in some very specific situations, including taking in LGBTQ refugees from Iran, Saudi Arabia or, more recently, Sudan, where certain sexual orientations, including gay and lesbian, have been criminalized in an extremely violent way.

Does my colleague think that we should be taking in more refugees from the LGBTQ community?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, just this morning, I was on a call with members of the foreign affairs committee of Latvia. They were congratulating Canada on our refugee settlement efforts. They noted that Canada was one of the best countries in the world for refugee resettlement.

I take issue with the whole premise of the member's question. I think Canada does a great job of accommodating refugee claimants and settling refugees here in Canada, and I am very proud of the efforts that Canada has made.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to speak at third reading of Bill S-8, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, to make consequential amendments to other acts and to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations.

I am very interested in this subject because, early on in my career, when I was a student and a community worker, I worked with refugees a lot and I also worked in human rights. It was very hard sometimes. Our work was impacted by cases of people entering Canada under dubious or fraudulent pretexts. It was very disheartening to see these people, who had committed human rights violations and other serious offences in their own country, find refuge here in Canada. I think it is very important for Canada to use every tool at its disposal to punish all those responsible for violations of international law, such as human rights abuses.

As members know, sanctions have proven to be effective foreign policy instruments to hold bad actor regimes accountable for their blatant disregard for the rules-based international order. The government may choose to use sanctions in situations relating to a grave breach of international peace and security, gross and systematic violations of human rights, and significant acts of corruption. In reaction to the Russian annexation of Crimea and the most recent developments in Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine, Canada has imposed a series of individual and economic sanctions.

Sanctions may be enacted through a number of instruments, including the United Nations Act, the Special Economic Measures Act and the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act.

Under our legislation, sanctions against individuals and entities can include a dealings ban, which is effectively an asset freeze, and restrictions or prohibitions on trade, financial transactions or other economic activity. Canadians are also prohibited from dealing with sanctioned individuals, effectively freezing their Canadian assets. This tool to freeze the assets of those who have committed acts that violate human rights is really effective. It is incredible. Freezing their assets really gets their attention.

Canada's immigration system has a strong global reputation, in part due to its well-balanced enforcement system. For nearly 20 years, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or IRPA, has worked in tandem with our sanctions legislation to ensure that bad actors are found inadmissible to Canada.

The IRPA defines the applicable criteria for all foreign nationals seeking to enter or remain in Canada, including grounds of inadmissibility that would lead an application by a foreign national for a visa or entry to Canada to be refused. In the case of the inadmissibility provisions of the IRPA as they relate to sanctions, decisions are relatively straightforward. If an individual is explicitly identified under one of the sanctions' triggers, then they will be found inadmissible to Canada under the IRPA on that basis alone.

However, inadmissibility provisions of the IRPA as currently written do not fully align with all grounds for imposing sanctions under the Special Economic Measures Act, or SEMA.

In 2017, two new sanctions-related inadmissibility criteria were brought into force by the Senate bill, Bill S-226. Bill S‑226 ensured that foreign nationals sanctioned under the SEMA were inadmissible to Canada, but only in circumstances of gross and systematic human rights violations and systematic acts of corruption.

This approach meant that foreign nationals sanctioned under other provisions, such as “a grave breach of international peace and security”, which has been frequently used in sanctions imposed in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, were not inadmissible to Canada. In other words, this means that Russian individuals sanctioned under the SEMA may nevertheless continue to have unfettered access to travel to, enter or remain in Canada, unless they are inadmissible for other reasons. This is unacceptable.

As we know, Parliament previously identified this as a legislative gap in Canada's sanctions regime. In April 2017, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development released a report that recommended that the IRPA be amended. The objective was to designate all persons sanctioned under the SEMA as inadmissible to Canada.

That is what is proposed in Bill S-8. The proposed amendments would ensure that all inadmissibility ground relating to sanctions are applied in a cohesive and coherent manner. Bill S‑8 will align the sanctions regime with inadmissibility to Canada so that Russian individuals and entities, which were recently sanctioned because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and Iranian individuals and entities, which were sanctioned for supporting terrorism and their systematic and blatant human rights violations, are inadmissible to Canada.

These amendments are very important because they would enable the Canada Border Service Agency and officials at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to refuse to issue visas.

These important amendments would ensure sanctions have meaningful consequences from both an economic perspective and in terms of immigration and access to Canada. In adopting these measures, Canada would be sending a very strong message to the world that those who violate human rights are not welcome in our country. The Government of Canada will continue to stand firmly against human rights abuses abroad, and we will hold both Russia and all other bad actor regimes accountable for their actions. At the same time, the government remains firmly committed to protecting the safety and security of all residents here on Canadian soil.

I know I am almost out of time, but I want to say that this is a very important bill for all political parties in the House of Commons as well as for my constituents in Châteauguay—Lacolle. We believe in justice, and we want justice. For that reason, I implore all hon. members of this House to support this important and timely bill.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member talked a lot about the bill being clear about making people inadmissible on the basis of their being sanctioned, or an entity that they belonged to being sanctioned, or a country being sanctioned, but the bill also includes some ministerial overrides.

Could she talk a little bit about the breadth of those overrides and the ministerial powers for overriding what would normally be a sanction that would make someone inadmissible? How much latitude and how much power would the bill give to the minister?

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is important in Bill S-8 that we have the ability to have coordination among the different legislative pieces that are there to ensure that undesirables are not able to stay in Canada.

Once in a while there will be a need to proceed on a case-by-case basis, and I think that in that regard, ministerial oversight would still be required. However, what I like very much about this bill is that it brings together all of these pieces of legislation to deliver a clear message of what we will not accept here in Canada.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague seems to think Canada is tough and imposes sanctions on regimes and individuals that violate human rights around the world.

We recently passed a motion recognizing the genocide against the Uyghur community in Xinjiang, China. However, we continue to import products from that region. The United States dealt with the problem differently: It assumes that any product manufactured in that region is associated with human rights violations.

Does my colleague think Canada should adopt the same policy? We give no one any chances, and we no longer buy products from that region?

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague's suggestion is very interesting.

In this case, these individuals have been identified as the perpetrators of certain reprehensible acts that are contrary to our laws. As for a general policy of some kind, I think this is more of an economic policy issue. It is very interesting. I know Canadians and Quebeckers already pay close attention to the origin of the products they buy at the dollar store.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, my problem continues to be on the implementation of our sanction regime. Of course, there should be no one in this House who wants people who have been sanctioned to be able to come to Canada, such as people who have committed human rights abuses or perhaps taken part in the illegal war in Ukraine and the genocide against the Ukrainian people. However, the problem is that the bill would do very little to fix the sanction regime, which provides no clarity to parliamentarians and provides no transparency.

We have asked time and time again about the seized assets, and I have brought a question forward through the Order Paper on this aspect. The government has made quite a big show out of saying it is going to be using those assets to help Ukraine rebuild. However, we have not been able to get any information from the government on what those seized assets are.

Why does that member believe the government is finding it so difficult to share that information, and why is the number of assets seized so incredibly low?

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I certainly respect the work of my hon. colleague in this area as well.

What I like about this bill is that it comes out of a study that was done in the foreign affairs committee in 2017. We know that things happened between 2017 and now, but it was a very comprehensive way to bring forth this kind of legislation. I am glad to see that it does have the support of, I believe, most members in this House, and certainly there is more work to be done.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Edmonton Griesbach, Disaster Assistance; the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, The Environment; the hon. member for Kitchener Centre, Persons with Disabilities.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to rise in the House today and offer my thoughts with respect to Bill S-8, a bill aimed primarily at amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other acts, including the Emergencies Act, to ensure that those whom Canada has sanctioned as a result of the war in Ukraine, and others, cannot claim sanctuary in Canada.

I would like to begin by addressing three areas of my remarks this afternoon. I will start by addressing some of the weaknesses in this legislation. This will be followed by thoughts that China poses a much stronger and more relevant case for this legislation. Finally I will say why, despite the obvious flaws, I will be supporting this bill, albeit with reservations.

When this legislation was brought before the Senate last year, the senators heard from Dr. Andrea Charron. Dr. Charron is the director of the Centre for Defence and Security Studies at the University of Manitoba. She noted what many of us in this chamber and the other place have noted over the past seven and a half years, which is that the Liberals really struggle to bring coherent legislation. Whether here or in the Senate, there is a pattern of bringing forward legislation that sounds good, sounds comprehensive and sounds tough but ultimately achieves nothing. That really is the legislative legacy of the current Liberals: symbolism and sanctimony over substance, and virtue signalling rather than leading with virtue. It is legislation that is far more concerned with looking and sounding good rather than with doing good. It is legislation that is ultimately aimed at pleasing certain core constituencies of the Liberal establishment and international entities rather than at achieving real change for Canadians.

As Dr. Charron put it, this bill “repeats a pattern whereby Canada tinkers on the margins of legislation without addressing core policy and process issues.” As Senator MacDonald noted in his critique, “[Dr. Charron's] critique of government bills is becoming all too commonplace of late. Many of the bills that the government is introducing are increasingly reactive measures, usually quick responses to external events. They are hasty measures designed to be symbolic, and it shows.”

Despite the Liberals' claim that they are listening to the experts, which is a claim that experts whose testimony has been systematically blocked or ignored by the Liberals in committee would dispute, their actions are not based on reality, unless they mean experts in how to keep the government from collapsing under the weight of its own self-righteousness and its own ineptness. The scandal-plagued government and Prime Minister consistently bring forward legislation, when in reality, as noted by expert witnesses at committee, changes to departmental processes and policies would likely be more efficient and ultimately more effective.

This virtue-signalling, reactive approach to legislation is often coupled with creating a straw man. Rather than dealing with the real issue or causes, the current government creates a false narrative with false bogeymen and false spectres of impending disaster, and then it attacks anyone who attempts to take a critical approach to its disingenuous actions. Dr. Charron asked the Senate committee a simple question: Is this actually a problem that needs to be addressed? Has this actually happened? Are there thousands of pro-war, pro-regime Russians whom we have sanctioned breaking down the door to get into Canada? Dr. Charron was unaware of such an occurrence.

The Senate heard from Richard St. Marseille, the director general of immigration and external review policy at the CBSA. Mr. St. Marseille informed the committee that no sanctioned individual from any country is known to have entered Canada in the past five years. There have been refusals abroad, including five under the Special Economic Measures Act and 10 under the Magnitsky law, but even those refusals are out of 1,858 individuals sanctioned under SEMA and roughly 2,200 individuals listed under various sanction grounds. To put it another way, none of these individuals have entered Canada, and fewer than 1% have even attempted to do so.

We have a lot of problems with our immigration and border security systems right now, but the simple facts and figures show that this is not one of them, nor is it likely to become one of them, because, despite the Prime Minister's belief that he has created a progressive utopia where everyone wants to live, many people in other parts of the world, including Russia, do not see it that way. Many Russians look at similar so-called progressive policies by the Zelenskyy government in Ukraine as a degradation of traditional values and, by extension, as part of their justification for invading in the first place: in order to rescue Ukrainians from what they view as western decadence and widespread immorality. A vast majority of Russians are appalled by the decline of traditional family values and what they see as the failures and weaknesses of western culture.

A growing number of Russians may be opposed to the war, even to President Putin, but let us not mistake that for a seismic culture shift that will suddenly embrace progressive policies and values. The notion that we are going to have a flood of Russians, especially those who have been sanctioned by Canada for supporting the regime, and who have had their assets seized, suddenly wanting and trying to come here is, frankly, ridiculous. They know they are not wanted here, and that is fine with them because they do not want to live here. There is no evidence or even indication this has been, is currently, or will become a problem.

We do have a pressing public safety and immigration problem, and that is with the Chinese Communist government. We have the Chinese ambassador and an untold number of agents of Beijing working to actively undermine our democracy; to intimidate and harm expats and family members, even members of the House; and to engage in espionage and cyber-attacks.

The government has consistently refused to address the actions of Beijing; better put, it has actively covered up for China's government. There are our National Microbiology Laboratory, the Chinese police stations that continue to operate despite the government's claim they do not, and the government's continuing to fund them through the Liberals' Canada summer jobs program. In fact, if one substituted China for Russia as the impetus for this legislation, it would be a lot easier to see this as a genuine effort rather than as just more virtue signalling. The opposition has been demanding, for months, the removal of the Chinese ambassador, the shutting down of these police stations, a stop to the government's covering up for its friends in Beijing, and its coming clean about what happened at the National Microbiology Laboratory and with election interference.

Instead, the government seeks to keep Canadians in the dark and distracted by creating a straw man so they will not pay attention to what the actual problem is. I really think the MO of the PMO has become to address something that has not been a problem, that is not a problem and is unlikely to become a problem, in order to distract Canadians from the myriad problems the government has created. Rather than address the illegal guns that the government has allowed to flood across the border, as used by the violent criminals it has kept out of jail, it goes after law-abiding firearm owners. Rather than go after its wealthy friends, it labels small business owners as tax cheats and goes after them. Now, rather than deal with the pressing and proven problem of Beijing, it raises the unsubstantiated spectre of an influx of sanctioned Russians.

I am not denying that Russia presents a threat to our Arctic sovereignty or to our digital infrastructure, or that the invasion of Ukraine is not a problem. It is a big problem, and Canada has gone above and beyond in our efforts to help Ukraine. However, this is Canada's Parliament, and those who poses an immediate domestic threat and should not be coming here are not the Russians; they are those from Beijing. This is really my main point here today. If we are going to pass this legislation, let us make sure we do so for the right reasons and use it against the right people. Let us use it to finally deal with Beijing, to finally deal comprehensively with the IRGC and those who are already here and pose a direct threat to Canadians and to our democracy.

With that said, as I noted at the top of my speech, despite these reservations, I will be voting in favour of this legislation. First, it would address a gap in the existing legislation that would allow IRCC to deny an individual based on international sanctions. Second, it would grant new powers to the Minister of Public Safety that would allow the minister to make a determination and issue a removal order. While any additional ministerial power, especially with the current government and its track record of shunning accountability at every turn, is a cause for concern, the opposition hopes that by removing the disingenuous excuse of so-called departmental dependence, the minister would now act in accordance with the will of the House to remove bad actors. Third, Conservatives have always been strong supporters of sanctions and the Magnitsky law, and have been critical of cases where individuals with ties to certain organizations but who are not necessarily on the terrorism list, like members of the IRGC, have been allowed to enter and remain in Canada. The legislation would remove the government's chief excuse for failing to deal judiciously with such individuals, so there is a chance it would become useful down the road, especially once a new Conservative government cleans up the legislation.

Despite the obvious flaws, there is sufficient merit to this legislation, and I will be supporting it.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I certainly heard the member start off his speech by saying that he would be voting in favour of—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

An earpiece too close to the microphone causes problems for our interpreters. I want to remind members to keep those away, as well as their telephones.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will check the seats around me. I hope that is better.

I note that the member started his speech by saying that he would be supporting the bill, but then he spent about eight of the 10 minutes talking about everything that was bad about it. The member then came back at the end and said that there are a couple of good things about it, so therefore he would be supporting it.

Does this means that the couple of good things outweigh all the bad things, and that is why the member would be voting for it?