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

This enactment amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to, among other things,
(a) reorganize existing inadmissibility provisions relating to sanctions to establish a distinct ground of inadmissibility based on sanctions;
(b) expand the scope of inadmissibility based on sanctions to include not only sanctions imposed on a country but also those imposed on an entity or a person; and
(c) expand the scope of inadmissibility based on sanctions to include all orders and regulations made under section 4 of the Special Economic Measures Act .
It also makes consequential amendments to the Citizenship Act and the Emergencies Act .
Finally, it amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations to, among other things, provide that the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, instead of the Immigration Division, will have the authority to issue a removal order on grounds of inadmissibility based on sanctions under new paragraph 35.1(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act .

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member could inform us how this bill, Bill S-8, might impact someone like Jihadi Jack. He is a British terrorist who fought with ISIS in Syria and said he would be happy for martyrdom by cutting off people's heads, including his friend's, for being in the British military. Britain cut off his citizenship, yet we are putting out the doormat for him.

Maybe the member could comment on that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am very reluctant to start providing comments on individuals on whom I do not have the full story.

I do not support any terrorist or anyone who threatens the sort of violence that the member referred to. I do not believe that any member of the Liberal caucus or the House of Commons who supports any type of terrorist being in Canada. That is why we have a system through CSIS, through Canada border control and the many other agencies that are well staffed by professional civil servants to protect Canadian society.

This legislation is about protecting Canadian society and about ensuring we have sanctions against regimes like Russia and Iran because of the barbaric things they are doing.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am going to share my time with the member for Calgary Nose Hill. I know members often forget to indicate this and it causes a bit of consternation at the table, so I wanted to mention that off the top.

Just so my constituents know what the debate is about, we are talking about Bill S-8, which would amend paragraph 35.1(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which is affectionately known by many of us as IRPA, because it is just easier to use the acronym, as with everything in government.

This bill would basically change the grounds for inadmissibility to Canada under IRPA to match with our sanctions list. Part of the debate over the last 18 months has been the government having to catch up over time and sanction new people in order to match sanctions to people we do not want to let in as we list new organizations, new people and new events that happen all over the world.

Many of us were gripped by the protests taking place by women standing up for their rights in Iran after the death of Jina Mahsa Amini, a Kurdish woman whose hometown was Saqqez, if I'm pronouncing it correctly. I am sure my Kurdish friends will correct me by email very soon. She was visiting Tehran, and she was picked up by the morality police. I am sure they noticed on her identity papers that she was not from Tehran and quickly figured out she was Kurdish. They beat her in custody, and she died a few days later. This sparked mass protests in Iran.

Then the government decided to start sanctioning individual bits and pieces of the regime in order to show it was on the side of the protesters. Many Iranians in Canada were asking why the government was still letting in members of the regime; people who have profited from the regime; people who are close to the regime, such as wives or girlfriends; or people close to the regime coming here to study.

I was getting videos and pictures of people landing at the Toronto Pearson Airport who were known members of the regime. Of course I would always tell them, “We don't know what you know, and you should inform the RCMP”. When they would go to the RCMP, they would usually be told the individuals or organizations were not sanctioned and that they had not been found inadmissible to Canada.

This bill would partially close that hole, which many of us and the worried members of our communities have called for in the past. We also know that if we do not enforce the sanctions or inadmissibility grounds, then it does not matter how many people we put on the list. We need a government that has the will to act and actually impose the sanctions on individuals and enforce them through information gathering and information sharing in order to identify these people in Canada.

I will draw the attention of the House to one specific person, and this is one I hear about quite often when I go to Iranian protests and rallies in Canada. Morteza Talaei is a former police chief of Tehran. He was the police chief when Zahra Kazemi, an Iranian Canadian and Montrealer, was arrested. She was beaten and died in custody.

The fact that we do not enforce our sanctions is one of the next debates we will have after this. When this piece of legislation hopefully makes it to committee and beyond and actually passes into law, then government can find the time to enforce it. Not only can the government devote resources to it, but it can also give political direction to the CBSA to detain and deport these people.

I had an Order Paper question given back to me just a few months ago that indicated the government was only following through on half its deportation orders for people who had already been found inadmissible to Canada. It is a shocking number that has gone way down since the pandemic, and that is a very worrying sign to me.

I want to cover what is happening in Iran, speak a little about the People's Republic of China and then cover the Russian Federation and its war of aggression on Ukraine. Those are the three major countries many of us think of when we think of our sanctions regime and the people we would like to be found inadmissible to Canada.

On Iran, I have been a big supporter of the protests. There are individual case files that have come to my constituency office that I have tried to advocate for, both directly with the Minister of Immigration and in working with members from both sides of the House.

I want to mention that I have politically sponsored Mohammad Amin Akhlaghi, who was sentenced to death by the regime simply for the act of peacefully protesting. I also sponsored Amir Mohammad Jafari, who was arrested at school when he was 17 years old. He was taken to prison, tortured and then sentenced to 25 years in jail, followed by exile after his prison sentence was complete. This was for the crime of corruption on earth, which is a broad claim made against many individuals in Iran.

Many of these individuals' family members have contacted me. It is just a broad-based accusation. They can do anything they want. This is through IRGC-controlled courts and a justice system where there is no justice.

Many organizations have been sanctioned. We have sanctioned different bits of the regime. However, in many cases, the fact that we are politically sponsoring them ensures their protection. It shows the Iranian regime that we are looking at individual cases. I track them every few days. I ask my staff, and I look them up to make sure that nothing has happened to them.

The government needs to be doing more. The little bit that we found in Bill S-8 is not, I think, quite enough just yet. The government needs to be defining some people as inadmissible and following up on cases like those of Morteza Talaei and other Iranian nationals who have come to Canada on different visas, who may have overstayed here and who are still here. They should have their visas reviewed as well. I am hoping that this legislation will look after that.

On the issue of the enforcement of sanctions, we had a New Democratic member stand up to correct the record when a member from one of the Winnipeg ridings was speaking on behalf of the government. However, our own shadow minister for international trade had an Order Paper question come back demonstrating that over the last however many years, at our border, the Canadian government has actually stopped zero dollars' worth of merchandise coming from the Xinjiang province in the People's Republic of China because of the use of slave labour.

In comparison, America has actually stopped billions of dollars of merchandise at its border. It is not as though our markets are all that different. We buy many goods. Many companies are buying goods, such as T-shirts, socks and a lot of goods made of cotton.

In Xinjiang, cotton happens to be one of the major products that is made with slave labour. Companies have to ensure that they have an ethical supply chain, but it is incumbent upon the government to ensure that the CBSA is directed to catch these products at the border. It is impossible that it is at zero dollars.

The fact that we received that answer to an Order Paper question proves that the government is not doing enough. I am hoping that after Bill S-8 gets a fulsome debate here, in committee, at third reading and at the report stage, members will get the satisfaction of knowing that the government is actually going to follow through and enforce it.

Lastly, on the Russian Federation, as I rose before to mention, we do not have the strongest sanctions in the world. Again, we have piecemeal sanctions of different bits of the regime.

I have a Yiddish proverb, and it will come at the very end.

We have sanctioned different parts of the Russian regime. In Bill S-8, there are references to the justice for Sergei Magnitsky act. It is a piece of legislation that I worked on at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs when we were debating it at the time.

For those who do not know, Sergei Magnitsky was Bill Browder's lawyer in Russia. He uncovered a $200-million-plus case of tax fraud being committed.

He was a fervent lawyer trying to get to the truth. For his trouble, he was arrested by the Russian regime. He was kept in confinement. He was beaten, tortured and murdered for the simple act of following up on tax law and making sure that the Russian taxpayer was getting their due.

The highly corrupt regime run by President Putin and oligarchs in Russia cannot be trusted. They have now moved to a hot war. The started the war in 2014 but moved to a hot war last year. The piecemeal approach of sanctioning different parts of the regime has not worked. There are many European countries that have much stronger sanctions than we do.

I gave the example of the Republic of Poland before. It has banned not only all coal imports but also the spread of Russian propaganda. It has prevented Russia Today from broadcasting and done many other things.

Many eastern European countries have a much longer history of trying to resist what many of them will call their centuries-long oppressor. This is why many of them joined NATO after the Warsaw Pact fell apart.

I have a Yiddish proverb, because I made myself a note to mention this: “If you want to make God laugh, tell him about your plans.” Yiddish is wonderful because it always tries to say something in a positive way but actually means something kind of insulting.

In this particular case, months from now, we will be moving on to other government legislation. I am convinced that the government caucus will be accusing the Conservatives of holding up pieces of legislation because we want to debate things and bring forward issues and individual cases that we think are worth listening to in this chamber. We will be told that legislation needs to be rushed because it needs to be passed.

I will think back to this moment when we debated Bill S-8, when we were debating legislation that many of us agreed with.

It is the government House leader's job to schedule Government Orders and to make sure that the priorities of the government are passed. I note that this legislation started in the Senate instead of the House; so much for a House of sober second thought when we are the ones looking at government legislation from the Senate.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I wanted to give the member the actual count, but I can assure him that Stephen Harper had dozens of pieces of legislation that came from the Senate into the House. It could be as high as 45. He might want to reflect on his last comment.

Yes, we would like to see the legislation pass. The member mentions what he will refer to months from now. We only need to look at this week. It is Friday. There was a Tuesday opposition day and a Thursday opposition day; Wednesday is a short day. Monday was a government day, but the Conservatives brought in another opposition day by bringing in a concurrence motion; therefore, we were not allowed to debate government bills. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot play political games in the chamber and then say the government is not calling legislation. We would like to see this legislation pass.

What are his thoughts on that?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North likes to bring up what happened over eight years ago. That is over a decade ago. I do not think Netflix existed back then. What does what happened eight years ago have to do with Bill S-8 and the current legislation we are debating?

The government passed a motion so it can do evening sittings, but it has chosen not to exercise it many times. This is a choice made by the government House leader. The choices the government makes indicate where its priorities are or maybe that it simply does not have a plan for what government legislation is absolutely critical. On this particular one, I am pleased with the contents of the legislation, but I am worried about enforcement. I am worried about whether Iranian nationals who came to Canada years ago, post-2015, would be able to stay here because there would be no enforcement of the provisions in Bill S-8.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, can my colleague expand on why the enforcement piece is so important in a bill like this and how this bill is lacking that? In his speech, he also outlined many instances where the government has enforcement tools at its disposal right now but seems to be very reluctant to use them, particularly when it comes to sanctions.

What could the government be doing within its existing purview to ensure that those Canada has placed sanctions on, even some of the weak ones that we already have, are actually subject to some of the punishments that would be associated with the same?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for the question. She has the theme right, which is the enforcement of the provisions. The government could be directing the Canada Border Services Agency to focus on the deportation of dangerous foreign nationals, or specifically, nationals from the Islamic Republic of Iran who are known affiliate members of the regime. It could focus on individuals who have been found or are strongly suspected to be associated with human rights violations in places like the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

There are individuals in this country who are either violent criminals or associated with regimes that are inherently violent. That is a political direction the government could give directly to the CBSA. As I mentioned before, I have a response from the government saying it has only followed through on half its deportation orders.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, can the member expand on what the government's delays in taking action mean to our trading partners? What signal does this send to our partners in fighting these type of regimes?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, the signal it sends to other countries is that we are slow to act. That was the case when the protest in Iran happened, for example. It took the government six to eight weeks before it actually reacted as a government. There were statements made in the House by different government caucus members for sure, and members on our side of the House mentioned it as well. However, there was delayed action in putting people and organizations on the regimes list. Moreover, we have not done the final thing, which I think is what this House has actually called for since 2018.

We passed a Conservative motion to list the IRGC as a terrorist organization. With that, we can then go to court, where our partners and allies will see that Canada takes its role seriously in the world as a defender of human rights. Right now, we do not have it, so listing the IRGC, in the case of Iran, would actually show that we are serious about pursuing human rights violators in our country.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, for my constituents, I will say that we are debating a bill that proposes to establish a legal framework for persons to be declared inadmissible or deported from Canada under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act due to their person, country of origin or organization being subject to sanctions.

I want to pick up on my colleague's theme of the enforcement of sanctions. I think what the government is trying to do with this bill is make sure that no cases slip through the cracks, even though there are already a lot of mechanisms that exist in Canadian law to ensure that such persons would not have access to Canada. To pick up on the theme of enforcement, and my colleague from Calgary Shepard just outlined some of the issues with the enforcement of sanctions, the government deputy House leader also said that there may be people in Canada who are subject to sanctions the government has not yet moved to act on, which is troubling. The government has had eight years to deal with these sorts of instances, and it has not. However, the theme of slipping through the cracks is much broader than just this bill when it comes to the immigration system.

To give an example of how I do not feel this bill adequately addresses enforcement mechanisms, I would like to draw my colleague's attention to an article that was published just moments ago in the Globe and Mail, which states that a member of the other place issued 640 documents to Afghan nationals, and I have seen one instance of these, which apparently said that individuals had been granted a visa to enter Canada. This was done through questioning over the last several days. The current Minister of Immigration said this was done without the authorization of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. What the IRCC said was that this senator did not have the authority, as no one does in this place, to issue visas.

Yesterday, at the immigration committee, I outlined an instance of the family of one of my constituents receiving this letter, which frankly fooled me for nearly a year. They thought they had received a visa or permission to enter Canada, but even after a year of trying to deal with virtually every department in the Government of Canada, we could never get confirmation as to what documentation the government was or was not using. As the story is unfolding today, we are now seeing, in an affidavit put forward yesterday in a related court case by the affected person from the other place, as well a consultant named Laura Robinson, that there were apparently 640 instances of these letters being issued.

What is worse is I know that the IRCC, GAC and other agencies were aware of at least the case I was dealing with, and as far as we can tell there was no action taken during this time. However, today, the affidavit that person put forward with respect to the case also states that this was done at the behest of the chief of staff of the defence minister at the time, whose name I believe is George Young, so that person actually sent these documents to the person from the other place and said to go ahead and use them. These documents say that they have been granted a visa and, at least in the instance I saw, bear a very authentic-looking Government of Canada seal. This is not just an email, but a document with a government seal that purports to grant somebody entry into Canada.

The Globe and Mail article states that, in her affidavit, the senator said she regularly e-mailed the former minister of foreign affairs, the former minister of defence and the former immigration minister, who is now the Minister of Public Safety, as well as their senior staff. The names they gave were Mike Jones and Olga Radchenko.

The issue I have with this is not that we should not be bringing Afghan nationals to Canada, particularly ones such as those in the family of my constituent, who Canada had a duty and obligation to protect. We should have been doing a lot more. The issue I have is that the government called a federal election and, according to this affidavit, allowed a workaround process, which none of us in this place had access to, but it appears it was essentially said that people who were not duly authorized by IRCC had the ability to issue these letters.

There is a reason our immigration process is arm's length and separate from political mechanisms. It is so that we can ensure that the equity of the process is unimpeachable, and that when we are making hard decisions on who comes into this country, particularly in times of crisis, we can assure our constituents that this was done under just and legal circumstances, because that is how we ensure that the public has trust and faith in the institution of the government.

This has enormous implications, and not just for the sanctity of the government's process on immigration. Again, the government is introducing legislation, I think, because it failed to use existing enforcement mechanisms. However, the case we are seeing today also put lives at risk.

The family of my constituent believed that the letters they received, which they thought were coming from a government official, would allow them access to Canada. They came out of hiding and exposed themselves to try to get to the airport. Then, because they were in possession of these letters, my office tried to help them for nearly a year. We understood that they had been approved, so why could they not come to Canada? They were not able to apply for another program, and because they applied late, the government said, “Sorry, there's no room here.”

Now I have to wonder about any other programs that the government put forward to bring Afghan nationals here. Now that there is a civil suit and all sorts of stuff happening, I wonder how they were selecting those persons. Are those persons going to be part of the lawsuit, which it is trying to make go away?

It brings me no joy to raise these matters in the House, but the bottom line is that the government has exposed itself to this type of questioning, because it refused, apparently over the course of a year, and I do not know what happened here, to use basic enforcement mechanisms to see if the documentation that was being presented was authentic. If the government did not have a process to evacuate persons in Afghanistan, it should not have called a federal election. That is just the reality.

I was the vice-chair of the immigration committee for four years. I know my way around the immigration file. However, these documents that came through my office fooled me. Why did they fool me? It was because the government was completely opaque, completely non-transparent, on the process by which it was using to address this situation.

I get that it was chaotic, but part of the duty and onus of the government is to see these things coming, and many colleagues in the House were talking about it for months. We knew this was coming. The government knew that this was a risk, and instead of putting due process in place, it looks like it did a panic workaround, and I think it used a well-intentioned person. The Liberals knew about and should have shut this down to put something in place that was proper, or it should not have called an election. The result of this is a lack of compassion that undermines the integrity of our immigration system and puts people such as those in my constituent's family at risk.

The government needs to do everything possible to find out what happened here and hold persons who are are responsible for this to account. Otherwise, the bill that is in front of us today, or any other mechanism, is always going to have questions attached to it, such as this: Is having a fake visa issued by a member of Parliament or a senator the best way to get to Canada?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I would like to pick up on the member's comments regarding the fraudulent documents.

Many years ago, I was also on the immigration standing committee, and I remember the representation on that, because it applies when we talk about individuals who attempt to get into Canada, quite possibly even if they have been sanctioned. However, when we took a look at some of the documentation that was being provided, we found out that we have a whole industry out there that is built on designing documents that look authentic. We need to work with other agencies, particularly other international governments, to deal with that particular industry, because those documents are very convincing.

I wonder if the member could provide further thoughts regarding the appearance of some of those fake documents.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, we are not talking about an industry in the case I raised. We are talking about a member of the other place, a sitting parliamentarian; a consultant who was paid for by tax dollars through that parliamentarian's office, as far as I can tell on her expense disclosures; and the former chief of staff to the defence minister. There is also a litany of associates of the government who were associated with the affidavit that was filed, so this is not about an industry.

The question I would pose back to my colleague is how anybody could have any confidence in the government, if we are talking about members of the government, parliamentarians, being allowed to issue inauthentic documentation without any sort of recourse or remedy, even though, apparently, they have known about this for a while.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I wrote to the then minister of foreign affairs in February of 2021 to demand he take action so that we would not have been in a situation where people were not able to get out of Afghanistan when Kabul fell. Of course, nothing was done. An election was called instead.

However, I wonder if the member agrees we should have the current Minister of Public Safety, the current Minister of International Development and the previous minister of foreign affairs give some testimony in this place so we can be assured that no fraud took place.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is right. Members in this place, including her, know that we had been raising this issue well before the 2021 election when Kabul fell. Members of this place will have the opportunity to talk to their caucuses about a motion in front of the citizenship and immigration committee that would summon these people so they can come to be questioned and held to account by Parliament, if the government will not do the same.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.