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

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

moved 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.

Mr. Speaker, for almost 10 months, Canadians have watched in shock and horror at Russia's unjust, abhorrent and illegal invasion of Ukraine. On February 24, 2022, without provocation, Russian forces initiated this egregious step, which is a blatant violation of international law, the charter of the United Nations and the rules-based international order.

The attacks have caused widespread devastation of Ukrainian infrastructure and property, as well as unnecessary deaths of Ukrainians, including civilians.

These actions are a continuation and acceleration of the violent steps taken by Russia since early 2014 to undermine Ukrainian security, sovereignty and independence. The Government of Canada is committed to supporting those fleeing the destruction and devastation in Ukraine and to providing a safe haven for those fleeing their war-torn home country.

As we said since the beginning, whether it is military, political or economic support, Canada will continue to be there for Ukraine and hold Russia accountable. In the face of such brazen disregard for the international order, the Government of Canada has responded to the Russian invasion of Ukraine through the use of economic measures, including sanctions, to send a clear and unequivocal message that the aggression displayed by the Russian regime will not be tolerated.

These measures apply pressure on the Russian leadership to end its senseless war, which has resulted in the loss of thousands of lives and caused indescribable suffering to the people of Ukraine. These measures are the latest example of Canada's unwavering commitment to Ukraine and its people.

Since the invasion of Ukraine commenced in February, the Government of Canada has imposed sanctions under the Special Economic Measures Act on almost 1,200 individuals in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus.

Further targeted sanctions are planned in response to Russian aggression, demonstrating that Canada is a leader in the international effort to hold Russian leaders accountable for this violent and unprovoked attack on Ukraine.

More recently, the Government of Canada imposed additional sanctions under SEMA against Iranian officials in response to the Iranian regime's ongoing grave breaches of international peace and security and gross human rights violations. These breaches and violations include its systemic persecution of women and, in particular, the egregious actions committed by Iran's so-called morality police, which led to the death of Mahsa Amini while in their custody.

Targeted sanctions have been imposed against senior Iranian officials and prominent entities that directly implement repressive measures, violate human rights and spread the Iranian regime's propaganda and misinformation.

The legislative amendments we are introducing to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act would provide Canada with much needed abilities to better align government-imposed sanctions with authorities related to immigration enforcement and access to Canada. The IRPA defines when a person is inadmissible to Canada and establishes the applicable criteria for all foreign nationals and permanent residents who seek to enter or remain in Canada.

However, IRPA, as it stands, is incongruous with our inadmissibility regime. Its inadmissibility provisions do not clearly align with the basis for imposing the majority of SEMA sanctions issued against Russia and Iran.

Issuing sanctions against these countries on the grounds of a grave breach of international peace and security, which has resulted in the serious situation that we see today, does not automatically trigger inadmissibility. This means that most individuals sanctioned pursuant to SEMA may nevertheless have access to travel to, enter or remain in Canada if they are not otherwise deemed inadmissible.

This runs counter to Canada's policy objectives with respect to the measured application of sanctions and restrictions on foreign nationals who are part of the Russian or Iranian regimes or who are key supporters of those regimes.

Legislative amendments are required on an urgent basis to align the IRPA sanctions inadmissibility regime clearly with that of SEMA.

That is why I am here today to introduce Bill S-8, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which would, among other things, expressly align the IRPA with SEMA to ensure that all foreign nationals subject to sanctions under SEMA would be inadmissible to Canada.

If passed, the current inadmissibility grounds relating to sanctions would be expanded to ensure that foreign nationals subject to sanctions, for any reason under SEMA, would be inadmissible to Canada. This would include foreign nationals sanctioned not only in Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and Iran but also sanctioned individuals from Myanmar, South Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, Zimbabwe and North Korea.

In addition, these amendments would also modernize the current sanction inadmissibility framework set out in IRPA.

Allow me to explain the importance of this legislation and why I am seeking to pass it into law.

The amendments of this bill would allow for all sanctions related to inadmissibility grounds to be treated in a cohesive and coherent manner; strengthen inadmissibility legislation that we already have in place rendering persons subject to sanctions inadmissible to Canada; ensure that the sanctions imposed by the Government of Canada would have direct consequences in terms of immigration and access to Canada; and allow Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada officials to deny temporary or permanent resident visas overseas and authorize Canada Border Services Agency officials to deny entry to and remove from Canada sanctioned individuals.

Once enforced, these amendments would apply to all foreign nationals who are subject to sanctions issued unilaterally by Canada and to their immediate family members. These changes would ensure that all Russian and Iranian officials sanctioned under SEMA, and their sanctioned supporters, are inadmissible to Canada.

Without the proposed amendments, those who are sanctioned in response to the situations in Ukraine and Iran are not necessarily inadmissible unless they have violated some other provision of IRPA. This proposed legislation would completely close that gap.

This approach also aligns with and builds on recent strong legislative activity.

For example, in the 2017 report by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, entitled “A Coherent and Effective Approach to Canada's Sanctions Regimes: Sergei Magnitsky and Beyond”, the committee recommended that the IRPA be amended to designate all individuals sanctioned under SEMA as inadmissible to Canada.

Subsequently, also in 2017, the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, also known as the Sergei Magnitsky law or Bill S-226, came into force. This act created two new inadmissibility grounds, which aligned with certain sanctions, provisions related to international human rights violations, and significant corruption. Subsequent amendments to the IRPR were also made, so that delegated CBSA officers, as opposed to the immigration division of the Immigration and Refugee Board, were empowered to issue removal orders directly at ports of entry for individuals inadmissible pursuant to the newly created sanctions inadmissibility provisions.

This ensured that these individuals would not have to be physically referred into Canada for admissibility hearings before the Immigration Division.

Finally, budget 2018 provided the CBSA with the necessary funding to work with Global Affairs Canada and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to ensure that inadmissible sanctions cases are identified as early as possible in the travel continuum to prevent them from gaining access to our country.

These investments and the effective work of border management and immigration officials in Canada and abroad support the proposed legislative amendments that I am seeking your support for today.

Furthermore, while funding from budget 2018 ensured the proposed amendments were completed in a timely manner, the timeline of this proposal was adjusted to realign with border management and public safety priorities related to the necessary COVID-19 pandemic response. Nevertheless, proactive development of the amendments in Bill S-8 has enabled a timely legislative response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and Iran's violent crackdown against civilian protesters.

Further to the work already done, there are additional complementary and coordinating amendments introduced in this bill, which are required to align inadmissibility provisions with the sanctions provisions while maintaining the integrity of both frameworks.

First, all the sanctions inadmissibility provisions will be treated in a cohesive and coherent manner. This includes, for instance, adding a temporal element to all the sanctions inadmissibility provisions, which means that a person is inadmissible only for as long as they remain on a sanctions list. In addition, as is the case today with IRPA, immediate family members of foreign nationals inadmissible for sanctions are also inadmissible. Similarly, existing provisions of IRPA with respect to immigration, detention and sanctioned individuals would apply to the new sanctioned grounds.

Second, further legislative amendments in this bill would ensure that the inadmissibility framework related to multilateral sanctions, such as sanctions issued in concert with the United Nations, would be expanded to include groups or non-state entities, as opposed to only when states are sanctioned, as is the case today. Currently, sanctions issued against groups and non-state entities, such as al Qaeda or ISIL, do not automatically trigger sanctions-related inadmissibility ground. The proposed amendments would further facilitate interdiction and enforcement for sanctions issued multilaterally.

Make no mistake, the proposed amendments would improve Canada's ability to identify and stop sanctioned foreign nationals before they can get to Canada. In the event that some do nevertheless arrive at our borders, delegated CBSA officers would have the authority to issue removal orders immediately at ports of entry for all those inadmissible for sanctions.

It is important to note that sanctions inadmissibility is the most efficient and effective mechanism to swiftly identify inadmissible persons as early as possible in the travel continuum and to deny their ability to acquire a visa to Canada.

While other inadmissibility provisions may be applicable to some sanctioned individuals, it should not be assumed that all sanctioned individuals are also inadmissible for other grounds. Moreover, other potentially relevant inadmissibility grounds, such as those relating to engaging in war crimes, require extensive investigation, case-by-case analysis, and hearings before the Immigration and Refugee Board before they can be applied and yield consequences. It is not expected to be the case that all individuals who are sanctioned can in fact also be found inadmissible for some other ground under IRPA.

Unless there is a clear and specific ground for inadmissibility in IRPA against given individuals, immigration and border officers do not have the discretion to deny access to Canada. These amendments are therefore vital to ensuring consistent alignment between inadmissibility and sanctions.

Bill S-8 will also support other inadmissibility and immigration enforcement measures being pursued with respect to Iran. Additional measures against the Iranian regime were announced on October 7. The Prime Minister announced that the Government of Canada would be seeking to designate the Iranian regime under IRPA. This means that in addition to the individual sanctions, the top 50% of the most senior echelons and the members of the Iranian regime most responsible for egregious serial human rights violations will be considered inadmissible to Canada once the regime has been designated, and indeed that has been done.

Other refinements are included in the proposed amendments in Bill S-8. For instance, we will correct an inconsistency with respect to refugee policy that was created through Bill S-226. The Sergei Magnitsky law rendered inadmissible foreign nationals ineligible to make a refugee claim. However, multilateral sanctions such as those issued under the United Nations Act do not have the same consequence in IRPA.

Similarly, the Refugee Convention itself does not identify sanctions in and of themselves as sufficient to warrant exclusion from refugee protection.

The proposed amendments in this bill would correct that asymmetry and ensure that foreign nationals are not ineligible to have a refugee claim referred to the refugee protection division of the Immigration and Refugee Board on account of being inadmissible solely due to sanctions in line with Canada's international obligations.

Given the measures in place to deny sanctioned individuals access to our borders, in the rare case in which an individual can apply for refugee protection in Canada, all foreign nationals inadmissible due to sanctions who are granted refugee or protected person status would not be eligible to become permanent residents while those sanctions are in place. This is a balanced yet firm approach.

In addition, should a person inadmissible due to sanctions be subject to removal proceedings, they would be eligible to apply for a preremoval risk assessment, ensuring a fair assessment of risks facing them upon removal from Canada.

In recognition of sanctions being a deliberate statement of government policy, further amendments are proposed to narrow the available pathways to overcome inadmissibility for sanctions within IRPA.

I believe that lifting of the sanction in and of itself is the mechanism by which the consequences of a sanction should be avoided. As such, the bill proposes to remove access to ministerial relief for individuals who are inadmissible for sanctions. Furthermore, individuals inadmissible for sanctions would not have access to an appeal of the inadmissibility decision before the immigration appeal division, nor may they make an application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, under our proposed amendments. Any request for recourse related to sanctions ought to be made to the sanctions-issuing body.

For example, individuals inadmissible due to sanctions imposed by Canada could submit an application for delisting to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

In addition, as with all decisions under IRPA, the federal court will continue to have jurisdiction to conduct judicial review of inadmissibility determinations on the basis of sanctions.

The bill also includes coordinating amendments to the Emergencies Act and the Citizenship Act to maintain and clarify existing authorities related to sanctions inadmissibility in those pieces of legislation.

Now more than ever, we must move to align the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act sanctions regime with the regime under the Special Economic Measures Act.

The senators have agreed to adopt the motion and, to quote Senator Omidvar, have marked this bill as “super urgent”. I urge members to review Bill S-8 with the same sense of urgency. The bill will provide Canada with much-needed authorities to better link government sanctions, as well as the authorities necessary for our immigration officials to deny access to Canada. It will also better enable us to contribute to concerted action with our international partners.

The bill we are introducing in the House today is a prudent and comprehensive approach that would allow our government to respond to the Russian and Iranian regimes' aggression with appropriate immigration consequences.

This legislation and these amendments would provide a clear and strong message that the Government of Canada's comprehensive sanctions framework has meaningful and direct consequences, not only from an economic perspective, but from an immigration and access to Canada perspective as well. Doing so would allow us to stand up for human rights both here and abroad.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what I find interesting is that in May, in one month, the Senate went through all the stages. It went through report, committee and debate stages to bring the bill back to the House in May. We are now in the last couple of days of 2022, and the government must be out of its debt-inducing legislation. It has decided to finally bring the bill forward.

Can the minister finally tell us why it took so long to get the bill before the House?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that my colleague from the Conservative Party is quite anxious to see this legislation passed into law. All he needs to do, along with his colleagues in the Conservative Party, is vote for it. I cannot wait to see that moment.

However, I also want to assure him and all members of the chamber that, even as this bill has made its way though the parliamentary process, we have acted decisively. We have delivered among the strongest sanctions against those offenders against human rights and those who are visiting upon women and other vulnerable individuals in Iran the absolutely most atrocious violations with brutal attacks and the murders of the likes of Mahsa Amini.

That is why, in addition to this legislation, we made sure we designated the entirety of the Iranian regime under IRPA so we could prevent those who are most responsible, the architects of these violations, from ever setting foot in Canada again.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy about this bill. Clearly, we need to pass it as soon as possible.

However, I do want assurances from the minister about something. Anyone deemed inadmissible on grounds of sanctions may request a review of the reasons for their removal. Generally, the people who are here, who belong to oligarchic families, who are subject to sanctions, are people with money. These are people who can activate every possible recourse and draw things out as long as possible. Has that been addressed?

I checked the legislative summary, but it was not clear. Are there concrete measures to prevent these people from using the money they stole from their people to draw out the process and avoid removal?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is yes. There are provisions not just in this bill but in other legislation to quash the efforts of those who want to help the Iranian regime violate human rights.

In addition, the goal of this bill is to close the door on that kind of thing by making amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. That is why I encourage my Bloc Québécois colleagues and all members of the House to support this important bill.

It is another way to curb those people's efforts and to stop inadmissible individuals from entering Canada under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. It is a way to defend human rights here and around the world.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP, of course, supports getting the bill to committee. It is an important step in terms of improving our sanctions regime, but there are other aspects that are not included in the bill. There has been a delay around bringing the bill forward. We have seen, of course, with the appalling violent invasion of Ukraine by the Putin regime, that there were, on the sanctions lists in other countries, people connected to the Putin regime who were not on the Canadian sanctions list. Therefore, parliamentary oversight is vitally important. Having access to the sanctions list for the public and public officials is extremely important too.

Will the government agree to amendments at committee stage that would allow us to improve the bill so that there would be more parliamentary oversight over our important sanctions regime?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague, the House leader for the NDP, knows both me and our government to be very reasonable when it comes to making improvements to bills, certainly at the committee stage. We will be inviting a good, robust debate about the amendments that have been put forward.

I want to assure the member, though, that this bill would strengthen the regime under the IRPA. It would give us additional powers to make good on the suite of sanctions that we have delivered to the Iranian regime, and specifically to the perpetrators of egregious human rights violations to ensure they never set foot in Canada, because this is important. It is important to the women in Iran who are standing up for their rights and the ability to express themselves fully and freely, which all individuals, no matter where they are from and which country they were born in, have an inalienable right to do.

This legislation would ensure that Canada is a beacon of human rights by sending a very strong message that if anyone supports those transgressions, there are direct consequences. This bill, with its amendments, would allow us to advance that objective.

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

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the Conservatives' interventions, it seems as though they are eager to get moving with this bill and would like nothing more than to see it move on. I am sure we will not get the typical response from the Conservatives, who delay every piece of legislation, and they will not require putting up 50 speakers and then putting forward an amendment so they can put up another 50 speakers.

I wonder if the minister can comment on why it is important to get this piece of legislation to committee and ultimately have the legislation adopted. Why is it important to do that sooner rather than later?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Kingston and the Islands for his hard work every day in this chamber and for being an advocate for human rights.

It is indeed the need to stand up for human rights that makes this particular bill so urgent. The individuals who are responsible for transgressions of human rights and who brutalize, torture and kill innocent women and other vulnerable individuals in Iran need to be held to account. Canada has been consistently and strongly outspoken on the need to deliver sanctions and consequences so they can never set foot in Canada and, equally, so no one in this country can in any way try to support or facilitate those transgressions of human rights.

What this bill proposes to do is strengthen our capacity to deliver those consequences by rendering people inadmissible. Through more clearly articulated and expressed language under the IRPA, we have the ability to make good on that.

The sooner we can get the bill to committee and the sooner we can pass it into law, the better. I am somewhat encouraged, and perhaps it is the time of year, by the anxiousness that I hear from our Conservative colleagues over moving forward with it.

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

Mr. Speaker, we heard extensively that the minister seems to be very proud of what the government is doing in terms of sanctioning. I am wondering on what day his government will register the IRGC as a terrorist organization.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the member that by designating the entire Iranian regime under the IRPA, which is a provision that has only been reserved for the most egregious violations of human rights as well war crimes and genocide, we are putting within our crosshairs the IRGC. That is why this particular statutory mechanism is more fit for purpose. It allows us to look at the individuals most responsible for perpetrating egregious human rights violations to make sure they can never set foot in Canada, and ensures those who try to help the Iranian regime from here are not able to do so. This bill would make sure, with more precise language, that we are able to deliver on sanctions.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what is it going to take to list the IRGC as a terrorist organization? The IRGC shot down PS752, which was done intentionally as a terrorist act. It funds Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations throughout the world. It continues to commit all sorts of atrocities against its own civilians in Iran. Now it is participating in a defence co-operation agreement with Russia in the war in Ukraine by having kamikaze drones flown into civilian infrastructure to make winter long, cold and hard for Ukrainians.

Why will the government not wake up and finally list the IRGC as a terrorist organization, as Parliament called for unanimously in 2018?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague's concern for the people of Ukraine. That is why this government has been out front in helping Ukraine with military aid, with humanitarian aid and by delivering sanctions that are at the very top tier to make sure we hold the members of the Iranian regime accountable.

As my colleague knows, this is about the difference between looking at just one tentacle and the entire entity. By listing the entire Iranian regime, we are also making sure to put the members of the IRGC who are responsible for these acts on the inadmissibility list. That is how we hold them responsible. We will continue to do whatever is necessary to stand with Ukraine.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I start, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to split my time.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the wonderful member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner.

It is always a pleasure to rise in this chamber to speak to legislation. Today, we are talking about Bill S-8 to ensure that foreign nationals who are subject to economic sanctions are not able to enter our country.

Since we are also talking about human rights, I did want to take a moment to address an incident that happened this weekend to a very important person to Parliament, Irwin Cotler, who was at the premier of a documentary of his life and tireless work for human rights across the world. He was openly harassed and criticized at this event, which disrupted it and made quite a mockery of the whole thing. It made people very uncomfortable. Everyone should be open to public criticism and debate, as Mr. Cotler has always been and has never shied away from, but we are losing our decency as a society if we think it is acceptable to treat fellow humans this way.

In many circumstances, criticisms of accomplished Jewish people are often rooted in some form of anti-Semitism. It is okay for us to disagree with each other and we should encourage that at all times, but free speech also comes with a responsibility to treat one another with respect and decency.

We are now 10 months into Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine, but it was back in 2014 when Russia took actions and annexed Crimea. This egregious step was a blatant violation of international law. These attacks have caused the widespread devastation of Ukrainian infrastructure and property and the deaths of a number of civilians, notably women and children. These actions are a continuation of accelerated aggressive steps taken by Russia against Ukraine, and they threaten the international rules-based order. Canada responded, in part, through the use of economic measures, as did many of our allies. These sanctions are contained in the Special Economic Measures Act, and they affect about 1,000 individuals in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus.

The bill we have before us seeks to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or IRPA, as we just heard the minister refer to it, in order to do several things, as I understand it.

First, the bill seeks to reorganize existing inadmissibility provisions relating to sanctions in order to establish a distinct ground of inadmissibility based on sanctions that Canada may impose in response to an act of aggression.

Second, it proposes to expand the scope of inadmissibility based on such sanctions to include not only sanctions imposed on a country, but also those imposed on an entity or a person. This is important given we have listed individuals as part of our economic sanctions, not just countries.

Third, it would expand the scope of inadmissibility based on sanctions to include all orders and regulations made under section 4 of the Special Economic Measures Act.

Last, it would amend the immigration and refugee protection regulations to provide that the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Emergency Preparedness, rather than the immigration division, will have the authority to issue a removal order on the grounds of inadmissibility based on sanctions under a new paragraph of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. That will provide Canada with the needed ability to better link government action with economic sanctions for those who are seeking to come into Canada and experience a wonderful life here.

The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act defines when a person is inadmissible to Canada and establishes the applicable criteria for all foreign nationals and permanent residents who seek to enter or remain in Canada. However, its inadmissibility provisions do not align with the basis for imposing the majority of economic sanctions. This means that an individual who has been sanctioned economically can still show up to Canada and claim refugee protection. They are then able to be here in Canada to experience the life we have built. This is quite clearly a loophole that undermines confidence in our system and laws, and Canadians will not accept that these sanctioned individuals get to remain in Canada.

This loophole matters not only to Russian actors. Let us not forget about other countries with citizens who have been subjected to some of these sanctions: Belarus, Myanmar, South Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, North Korea and, of course, Iran.

With Iran, I will also mention that we should be doing much more than we are. We just heard an exchange between members of the opposition and the minister on that front. It is important to list the IRGC as a terrorist organization. That was the will of the House constituted back in 2018 and was again reaffirmed by the House just recently. We must act much more forcefully with respect to the IRGC. Canadians expect that of us.

Canada is often behind when it comes to some of these international actions. This is becoming part of our international reputation, and it is not a good one. We have been late with Magnitsky sanctions. We often wait to see where the political winds are blowing. We are too careful not to offend anyone.

Let us consider the government's official response to the Iranian protests, as we have discussed, or the treatment of the Uighur population by the Chinese Communist Party. We have been calling on the government to do more and it continually shies away from its responsibility. We are not being taken as seriously by the international community as we once were.

All too often, Canada's position is not substantive and not principle-based. It is slow to act, and often with half measures. Take, for example, the government's frenetic position on China. If we do not like the government's policy on China, we just have to ask another minister and we will eventually get the answer we like. Often the government is caught without a plan and requires significant public shaming to get some action.

Let us take, for example, the international commitment to fight money laundering through introducing a beneficial ownership registry and regime. This is exactly connected to preventing individuals who are sanctioned economically from hiding their assets across the world. Canada has one of the weakest laws for identifying assets in beneficial ownership. We are one of the only countries that has yet to introduce the beneficial ownership registry. The government promised to do it all the way back in 2019, then it said it would not get to it until 2025. Now it says that it will be bringing it in at the end of next year, but we are still waiting to see the legislation.

Yes, the government has agreed to fast-track it, but there is still much more to do. All the other countries are moving so much further ahead of us when it comes to fighting global money laundering. Again, it is connected to this legislation because these individuals have assets all across the world. It might be the case that we will not allow sanctioned individuals to come into Canada now, but those individuals could still hide their assets here because we do not have a way of finding out who owns what in our country. We need to do much more, much more quickly on this front.

Once again, the government says all the right things, but fails to execute on much of it. Yes, we see some action here, but I guess, as the saying goes, a broken clock is right at least twice a day.

I look forward to the committee discussions on Bill S-8. It is important legislation. We have already heard members in the chamber on the opposition side ask why it is taking so long. We look forward to moving the legislation through to committee, addressing perhaps some of the amendments that were brought forward by the NDP. It is an important step for our country to put in place measures that make it harder for individuals who have violated human rights and international laws to come here, to remain in a wonderful country that we have built and get the advantages of the political and legal systems that we have built.

It is with great pleasure that I speak in favour of the legislation and I look forward to it going to committee.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees. We also want to ensure that we have everything in our possession to guarantee that our refugees are protected.

Earlier I heard my colleague talk about the fact that the government is behind the curve. That is true not just in defence, but also in foreign affairs. It is no secret that the government is also behind the curve on the environment and privacy protection. Every time we leave this place and talk to our counterparts from other countries, we are all a bit embarrassed.

My question is the following. Essentially, we all agree on this bill; I noticed that from the outset at second reading stage. That being the case, why has the bill dragged on for so long? Why did the government not take action sooner?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as was mentioned previously, the bill was passed in the Senate in the spring and has been sitting all fall waiting to be dealt with in this chamber. Now it is a couple of days before we rise for the winter holidays and we have been asked to fast-track it.

The Conservatives hope it gets to committee quickly, but, at the same time, it has been sitting throughout the fall waiting for somebody to pick up and for the government to move it forward. We are happy to see that progress today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I tend to disagree with my friend from the Bloc who suggests that Canada is lagging behind or that Canada is not well respected throughout the world. There is always more work to be done, and I know we have to fight to do that.

I recall, when I was on the defence committee, being in Ukraine and hearing about how all these other countries, particularly European countries, wanting to be part of the Canadian brigade. They wanted to line up behind Canada because they saw Canada as a leader in the world when it came to ensuring peace and stability. Therefore, I do not know if I would entirely agree with the comment.

For my Conservative friend, he said that this had been sitting here all fall waiting to be picked up. Does he think that perhaps if Conservatives had not been playing games with other legislation, from the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes coordinating random quorum calls in the middle of debates to other delay tactics, that perhaps we may have seen the bill come forward a little sooner?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, no, I do not think so.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address 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. The bill before us seeks to make several changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The bill proposes to reorganize existing inadmissibility provisions relating to sanctions. This proposal is to establish a distinct ground of inadmissibility based on sanctions that Canada may impose in response to an act of aggression.

When Russian dictator, Putin, invaded Ukraine, the world watched in horror. A democratic country, in a region of the world where I and so many other Canadians have family roots, was being shelled and attacked with hostile aggression.

Since the invasion of Ukraine commenced in February, the Government of Canada has imposed sanctions under the Special Economic Measures Act, also known as SEMA, on over 1,000 individuals in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. However, these sanctions on their own were not grounds that would have been enough to prevent those friends of Putin from gaining citizenship, permanent residency or refugee status in Canada. Bill S-8 serves to correct that loophole.

Bill S-8 also proposes to expand the scope of inadmissibility based on such sanctions. It recommends to include not only sanctions imposed on a country, but also those imposed on an entity or a person. Such sanctions are becoming more and more common as we see dictatorial governments where the citizenry need not be held accountable for the tyrannical actions of the dictator in charge.

The sanctions against the country, although beneficial to show Canada's opposition to the actions of a rogue government and practicality, have the largest negative impact against those citizens. It is those citizens who now will bear the weight of a corrupt dictator and face the unintended impacts of our sanctions.

Bill S-8 would also expand the scope of inadmissibility based on sanctions to include all orders and regulations made under section 4 of SEMA, the Special Economic Measures Act.

It would also amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations to provide the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, instead of the immigration division, to have the authority to issue a removal order on grounds of inadmissibility based on sanctions under the new paragraph 35 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

This gives me pause. I understand the value of having the ability to have the Minister of Public Safety step in and become involved should the situation warrant it, but the current minister is certainly not a beacon of responsibility, accountability and trust.

Let us not forget that it was the current Minister of Public Safety who, in his previous position as the minister of immigration, was responsible for failing to protect the Afghan interpreters that Canada relied upon in the war in Afghanistan.

Let us not forget that it was the current Minister of Public Safety who introduced the strongest emergency legislation in Canada against his own citizens when he invoked the Emergencies Act to avoid meeting with freedom convoy organizers who came here to be heard by the government.

Let us not forget that it was the same minister who was having his Liberal colleagues turn Bill C-21 from a ban on law-abiding handgun owners and sport shooters into an all-out targeting of hunters, farmers and indigenous Canadians.

If I were to go through all the failures of the current Minister of Public Safety, I would need more time than I have, but I know my colleagues are eagerly waiting to speak. I can take solace in knowing that the powers in this legislation will belong to a Conservative Minister of Public Safety after the next election, but I digress.

Currently the laws of Canada do not directly specify that international sanctions are a basis upon which we can reject permanent residents, citizenship or refugee applications. We do have faith in our bureaucracy to make the decisions that need to be made to protect Canada and the enjoyment of citizenship, permanent residency or refugee status. This new framework would provide it the ability to make clear and direct decisions that would completely implement the will of Parliament and fully utilize existing laws, like the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, also known as Canada's Sergei Magnitsky law.

Bill S-8 also practically ensures that no sanctioned individual could appeal the actions taken against them and their application for citizenship, permanent residency or refugee status due to the vagueness of the laws. Without Bill S-8, the bureaucracy could not simply disallow an application on the grounds of the applicant being a sanctioned individual. Now they need to go through a more untraditional process of excluding them for the actions that put them onto the sanctions list, which can lead to vagueness in the rejection.

We know these sanctioned individuals typically are coming to Canada with ill-gotten gains. They therefore have the means available to them to hold up the process, litigate the decisions and not only tie up our courtrooms and appeal processes from those deserving of them, but also cost the Canadian government and taxpayers time and money dealing with these processes.

I am glad the government has finally taken the time in the House to implement the Magnitsky act in a manner that would give it some teeth. Conservatives are supporting this bill. We have always strongly supported sanctions against individuals, entities and countries that threaten the national interest or international law. We have been critical of cases where individuals with ties to prescribed organizations, but who are not necessarily on a terrorist list, have been allowed entry to Canada. We have always put the national interest first with respect to questions of citizenship and immigration. Conservatives have strongly supported the Magnitsky act.

Canadians should not worry sanctioned individuals are seeking to enter our communities when so many legal, law-abiding applicants are waiting to immigrate. Our allies must also be assured we will uphold our sanctions.

In closing, this legislation was introduced, as was mentioned previously, in the Senate in May of this year. It was passed through the Senate in under a month. That is including first reading, second reading with debate, committee stage, the report stage and the third reading with debate.

The Liberal government introduced Bill S-8 to the House of Commons on October 4, and now, on December 12, it finally gets floor time. We wonder why it took the Liberals so long to close this gap in our immigration law. What has been the hold up? It would seem the Liberals have run out of debt-inducing legislation and have decided to use these final few days before Christmas to move forward with the legislative priorities of Canadians.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in several other public safety bills, notably Bill C-20 and Bill C-26, I have noticed, in the way the bills are written, there is a lack of avenue for parliamentary oversight.

One thing that has been missing with this sanctions regime is also a lack of parliamentary oversight. Would Conservatives join with New Democrats at committee to look for avenues in which this bill could be strengthened to buttress up parliamentary oversight so members of the House could make sure the government is doing its job when it should be doing its job?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, anytime we have legislation before the House that impacts Canadians, it is a must that we have parliamentary oversight. At some point in time, well-intended actions do not necessarily turn out the way legislation is written, so it is critical. I would agree with him that some sort of oversight to provide Parliament with a final say on how this should look would be most appropriate, in my opinion.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, part of this, of course, is to prevent human rights violators from entering our country, but in order for them to be stopped, they need to be named. The Magnitsky sanctions have not been well used. In fact, in the last five years, there have been zero folks named. Does he believe the government is dropping the ball when it comes to labelling human rights violators?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely. One needs to look no further than the government's refusal and absolute hesitancy to deal with the IRCG as a terrorist organization. We need not look any further than that to have an answer to that question. It is absolutely dragging its feet.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, I asked my colleague a question. I wanted to know why the government had waited so long, given the importance of this bill not only for identifying terrorist groups, but also for ensuring the safety of refugees.

I will ask my other colleague the same question. Why has it taken so long, and why are we starting the study of this bill just a few days before we rise for the holidays?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have now been in this place a little over six years, and I have learned that I can not answer questions about or be able to understand why the Liberal government does what it does, so I have stopped.

With all due respect, I do not know why it has waited since May to bring this legislation forward. It seems to me that it focused on other agendas, which were going to have a negative impact on Canadians, rather than the will of Canadians. This is something that Canadians have asked for for some time.

I will give the government credit. It finally did it. It was at the eleventh hour, but it brought it forward.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill S‑8.

The bill before us is basically very simple. It adds a ground for refusing entry into the country if one is the target of economic or other sanctions imposed by Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I wish to share my time with my very congenial colleague from Shefford. Fortunately, her arrival jogged my memory. I believe that I also need the unanimous consent of the House to do that.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to split his time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues. This does not happen often, but I will say it: For once, we all agree.

It is like the bill we are debating now, Bill S‑8. Quite simply, we want consistency. The idea is to impose measures against individuals or states, but especially individuals. Top of mind for us all right now are Russian oligarchs, but Iranian groups or groups from other nations could be targeted by sanctions. They would be denied entry or could be removed from the country on those grounds.

The bill will impact a number of laws. I have read the legislative summary, and it is quite complex. There is the Special Economic Measures Act, the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, or Sergei Magnitsky law, and the United Nations Act. The aim is to amend a pile of legislation to ensure that Canada's system is consistent when it comes to imposing sanctions on foreign offenders. There is no point in mincing words: They are criminals, people who have made populations suffer or simply, which is no better, usurped their country's, their nation's, economic wealth and who come to a country like Canada to lead a nice, quiet life.

There have been too many cases in history of war criminals and people who committed horrible crimes and were finally discovered in a southern country at the age of 89. For 40 years, they had relaxed by the pool or at the beach, with their drinks in hand while the people they made suffer never recovered. There were those who died, the children who were injured or killed, and the women who were raped. In the face of all these horrors, we must take a consistent approach and bring them to justice.

However, this does raise questions. My Conservative colleague who spoke just before me raised a very pertinent question. He wondered why this arrived in the House on December 12. I do not know if anyone will vote against it. We always have that right, but I do not believe it will happen. I think that the bill will pass rather unanimously. I think we can pass it quickly and move on to something else.

How did it take two months for the bill to be introduced in the House? During that time, people have been in Canada getting a free ride. That is the issue. These are people who are targeted by sanctions who are taking advantage of the quality of life, health services and so on that Quebec and Canada have to offer, and they are getting away with it. I have a hard time with that.

When we talk about the Magnitsky law, we talk about people who were tortured and mistreated. I am thinking about Evgenia Kara-Murza, whom I had the great privilege of meeting at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights a few months ago. She holds her head high, courageously, and talks about her husband as much as she can. Her husband is currently imprisoned in Russia by people who have already poisoned him twice. I invite members to stop for 30 seconds and try to imagine being in that situation. She is touring western countries, trying to drum up international pressure and have people talk about her husband as much as possible, hoping to save his life.

How can we allow people who poison dissidents, who imprison them without cause and who create hundreds of political prisoners to come to Canada or Quebec to live a nice, quiet life? We cannot do that. That is why the House is unanimous.

Inadmissibility on the grounds of sanctions will be added to the grounds of security, human rights violations, criminality, organized criminal activity, health grounds, financial grounds, misrepresentation, non-compliance with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and family inadmissibility. The grounds for inadmissibility in the bill also apply to individuals who are alleged to be members of non-state organizations, such as terrorist groups.

Incidentally, there are ways to identify terrorist groups. Yes, there are groups that should be on the list and are not yet, but it is in the works. Still, it is possible to blacklist terrorist groups, implement specific sanctions for those people and take away certain rights. If it can be done in that context, why is it not possible to create a list of criminal organizations as a means to control illegal firearms? I do not understand that.

I hope nobody catches any of the flu viruses, which are pretty bad. That is why I have been absent a few times in recent weeks, but I have been keeping an eye on what is going on in the House from afar. I am very proud of my Bloc Québécois colleagues, who very capably dealt with the firearms management crisis the government caused and who demanded additional meetings with experts. We are fortunate to have a group of hard-working, professional people here. Those people are, of course, the Bloc Québécois members.

I was watching all of that from afar, and I found it very sad. I think it is a good thing when members of terrorist organizations are banned from entering the country. We do not have to do these people any favours. However, why are we doing favours for known gang members who party on the weekends wearing their colours and vests? I do not understand that.

This is not about democracy. It is about weapons trafficking. My colleague from Rivière-du-Nord, who is a member of the justice committee, introduced a brilliant bill on criminal organizations. I invite the government members to use it to draft a bill along the lines of the one we are currently examining. We do not have to give a chance to criminals, abusers and those who make others suffer.

This bill is a no-brainer. The Bloc Québécois thinks that Canada and Quebec should be a safe haven for people fleeing war, but not for those who cause wars and make people in their home country suffer. It should also not be a safe haven for thieves, con artists, criminals or profiteers.

Therefore, I invite everyone to quickly vote in favour of this bill. Before I conclude my remarks, I just want to mention a concern that we should be vigilant about as we move forward. Earlier, my NDP colleague made a good point about parliamentary oversight for the bill's next steps, and I believe that is very pertinent. Nevertheless, I want to raise another concern.

The oligarchs living here have money. They can pay for lawyers and take legal action. One of my concerns is that these people could launch lawsuit after lawsuit, claiming that the deportation is not justified. They would get to remain here for several more years enjoying themselves, while the people who suffered at their hands are dead or in prison in their country of origin. If any of my colleagues can respond to that, I thank them in advance.

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

Mr. Speaker, I look at the very principles of the legislation. It is encouraging, whether it is from the former Conservative speaker or the member across the way, that it would appear there is once again legislation before the House for which there is unanimous support.

We see that as a good thing when we take into consideration Canada's leadership role on the global scene in regard to the issue of human rights. This does deal with it in a very direct fashion. I believe Canada plays an important role. When we look at what is taking place in countries like Iran, and in Ukraine with the war, it sends a very strong message.

Could my colleague provide his thoughts in regard to the type of support we are witnessing today, recognizing the need to reflect in our refugee policy, or even immigration in general, that those who have caused harm abroad or who have violated human rights would not have a place through immigration to Canada?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North and I agree on something for once. It is clear that we are getting close to the holiday season. I am happy to agree with him.

I agree with him wholeheartedly. That is why this bill is a no-brainer, why it is obvious and why I think there is unanimity in the House. He is right to point that out.

However, we wondered why it took so long to get to the House. Because of the inner workings of government, my colleague may have some answers that we are not privy to. Many of us do not understand why it took so long.

Of course, we need to move quickly to pass this bill, because war criminals and people who have made people suffer should not be allowed to take it easy in Quebec and Canada while the citizens of their home countries are still suffering. We have a moral duty to ensure consistency with all the other sanctions we have imposed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé for his speech.

All political parties support this bill, but I do not think the Liberals are taking it very seriously. Thousands of people, including Canadians of Iranian origin, had to demonstrate in order for the government to decide to show that it is taking the situation seriously. Now the government is beginning to study this bill a few days before Parliament rises.

Does the member agree that the Liberal government is prioritizing this bill at last only for political reasons, not because it is a real priority and not because it is genuinely motivated to do so?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague very much for his question, which was well articulated in French.

Yes, I quite agree, unfortunately, and I think that is all too common.

However, the bill before us today is truly necessary and urgent. We will therefore support it in the good faith that we always show here in the House, by making constructive proposals to improve things.

My colleague is right to point out the government's typical Liberal inconsistency, given that it took so long to begin working on this bill. I digressed earlier in my speech to talk about gun control and to point out that the government amateurishly started proposing amendments after the committee had finished studying the bill. That is unacceptable. Anyone looking at this from the outside would wonder how it is possible. This is just one more question to add to the pile of questions about the government's way of doing things. Let us hope that voters remember this.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy sitting on the agriculture committee with my colleague.

I think there is general agreement in the House that what is in the bill is important, and there is a desire to get it to committee. However, I would like to ask for the member's and the Bloc Québécois's thoughts on what is missing from the bill and what could be worked on at committee. For example, the bill would not fix the lack of parliamentary oversight. The bill would not fix the clarity issue of why some names are added to the sanctions list and some are not, and for what reasons.

I am wondering if he could offer some thoughts on those two key missing pieces that could have been in the bill and how that might inform committee work at the next stage.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to return the compliment to my colleague regarding the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Once again, he has contributed a very relevant comment. The possibility of adding parliamentary oversight is indeed something that the committee should study. It will also be important to see how this legislation is enforced over time.

My colleague raised some important questions. I also raised a very relevant question earlier regarding concerns that wealthy people might resort to legal action in order to stay here. Those shortcomings will have to be addressed in committee.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a challenge to speak right after my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé. I would like to say hello to him today, as I have not seen him in a while. I am happy to see him again and I wish him a happy and healthy new year. I think that is the least I can do.

I have been listening to the debate today. There is an expression that says that we cannot be against apple pie. I am trying to find a better expression for the holidays. I could say that we are not against tourtière or Yule logs. I really feel that this is a bill that we all agree on.

This makes us all feel good at the end of a year during which the government all too often introduced poorly drafted legislation and another party obstructed proceedings for the sake of being obstructionist and engaging in petty politics. How many times have I said that we need to have more children like us in the room? Actually, I mean the adults in the room. It is what it is. It is a reasonable and sensible position for a bill that must be passed.

I rise to speak to the bill that amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to reorganize existing inadmissibility provisions relating to sanctions to establish a distinct ground of inadmissibility based on sanctions. The bill also seeks to 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. Finally, the bill would also expand the scope of inadmissibility based on sanctions to include all orders and regulations made under section 4 of the Special Economic Measures Act. This will give it even more weight.

The bill also makes 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 the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

I will begin by saying a few words about the bill, I will talk about different points of view, and then I will list some gaps we should address.

First, the bill, which passed in the Senate, updates the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to make inadmissible to Canada individuals and their immediate families that are targeted by sanctions such as those imposed on businesses and individuals. This is being done in the wake of escalating Russian aggression since the illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022. That is the context for this measure.

In 2017, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development released a report, known as the Sergei Magnitsky report, that addressed the approach to Canada's sanctions regimes. Recommendation 13 of that report called for the act to be amended. Sergei Magnitsky was a Russian lawyer who died in a Russian prison under murky circumstances after exposing the corruption of Russian oligarchs. His death gave rise, in both Canada and the United States, to sanction regimes under the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, also known as the 2017 Sergei Magnitsky law.

I will digress for a moment, because this phenomenon still exists in 2022. My thoughts are with the journalists who died under some very disturbing circumstances in Qatar after speaking out against what was going on with LGBTQ+ communities. Quite frankly, it is worrisome. I hope this bill will be a first step and send a clear message that this is unacceptable in this day and age.

Implementing this recommendation became a priority last spring in the aftermath of the invasion of Ukraine, as I said.

As my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé pointed out, inadmissibility based on sanctions might relate to security, international human rights abuses, criminality, organized crime, health, finances, misrepresentation, non-compliance with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act or family inadmissibility. It is quite interesting.

Furthermore, the bill's inadmissibility provisions include individuals who are members of a non-state organization, such as terrorist groups. That aspect is explicitly set out, which is good.

This bill should pass unanimously. As I said, when I was listening to the debates in the House, I got the impression that there was unanimous agreement. That was the case in the Senate. After all, the bill simply brings the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act into line with the economic sanctions that Canada wants to impose and must impose on belligerent countries.

On May 17 the bill was introduced in the Senate before ending up in the House of the Commons. This bill has been on quite a journey.

Rumour has it that the Conservatives and the NDP are going to support the bill. Something interesting is happening as we wrap up before the break. I would like to note what Senator MacDonald said in his speech in the Senate:

I recognize that there is jurisprudence that permits literally anyone to make a refugee claim at a Canadian port of entry, but I remain concerned that there are those who will inevitably abuse this, using it as a loophole to gain entry into Canada. Such individuals can then potentially use the slow pace of our judicial system against us in order to remain in Canada for an extended period of time.

There is not only the slow pace of the system, but also the means that some may use to take advantage of the situation, including financial means.

The Bloc Québécois has called for and defended economic sanctions against Russia's unjustified invasion of Ukraine. We believe that the individuals targeted by these sanctions should be inadmissible because the sanctions are a foreign policy tool intended to combat violations of international law and international standards.

Quebeckers and Canadians alike want Quebec and Canada to be a safe haven for people fleeing war, corruption and persecution, not a refuge for criminals. That has been said before, and we are saying it again.

It is all the more important to say this because Granby, in the heart of my riding, is a safe haven, so we experience all kinds of situations.

Quebec wants to be a safe haven for people who have fled war, corruption and oppression. Those who start wars and violate human rights should not be welcome here.

That is why the Bloc Québécois will support Bill S‑8.

According to the UN, Russia has committed numerous war crimes during its invasion of Ukraine, including bombings of civilian areas, a large number of executions, torture, ill-treatment and sexual violence. That list could grow longer as the conflict drags on, which would be even more worrisome.

From the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine, the Bloc Québécois has brought forward several concrete proposals that were accepted by the government to accelerate the intake of Ukrainian refugees and families. We asked that the requirement for the collection of biometric data for certain categories of refugees be lifted and that flights be chartered. I know that some MPs, like the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, even took Ukrainian families into their homes. In such cases, what can we do to work together and welcome these people?

Moreover, it is vital that we update the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act so it is consistent with all the sanctions regimes. Bill S‑8 updates this law to add sanctions to the list of grounds of inadmissibility. We want everything to be consistent.

I should note that the bill is consistent with the different sanctions implemented under the Special Economic Measures (Ukraine) Regulations pursuant to the Special Economic Measures Act. These regulations have been amended more than 40 times since Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its invasion of Ukraine in February. We can see that progress is being made.

If Bill S‑8 is passed, the various sanctions regimes, such as those under the United Nations Act, the Special Economic Measures Act, or organizations of which Canada is a member, like NATO, could apply. I think that is a good thing.

The bill would allow a border officer to turn back a sanctioned individual upon arrival, which would greatly simplify the deportation process. The bill also fixes gaps in the law to ensure that Canada respects the rights of asylum seekers and meets its international obligations in terms of taking in refugees.

A person who is targeted by a sanctions regime can claim asylum, but they cannot be granted permanent residence as long as they are targeted by a sanctions regime. That adds weight.

Bill S‑8 would also make it possible to fix the problems that were introduced by the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, which prohibited individuals targeted by a sanctions regime to file a claim for refugee protection. This correction is in line with the refugee convention, which states that only refugees who have “been convicted by a final judgement of a particularly serious crime, [constitute] a danger to the community of that country”. That is sufficient grounds to remove a refugee from the country or deny them entry. That is very interesting.

I would like to close with a bit of compassion. Beyond what we are talking about today and the debate on how people are welcomed here, I want to point out that, as I mentioned, Granby is a welcoming place. I would be remiss if I did not mention the incredible work of Solidarité ethnique régionale de la Yamaska, or SERY, which is celebrating its 30th anniversary this year.

This organization helps newcomers to integrate. It does an outstanding job for the community and the region. As its slogan so eloquently says, “our home is your home”.

I would like to end on that positive note and recognize the good work of the people at SERY.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member might be aware that, in 2017, we had a standing committee through foreign affairs that came up with a number of recommendations that are, in fact, reflected in the legislation as brought forward through the Senate. We know we have a fairly substantial legislative agenda, especially going towards the end of the year.

Everyone seems to be very supportive of the legislation. As I said, it has already been before a standing committee indirectly. I am wondering if the member would not agree that it would be a wonderful thing to pass this legislation or attempt to get it to committee before we break at the end of the week.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all parties in the House today, including our own, are unanimous about wanting this bill to go forward. That is worth noting.

In his question, my colleague spoke about a 2017 report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. However, this is 2022. He said that this was put forward again because of the Senate. It is strange that the government did not introduce this bill itself given the recommendations made in 2017. We have been waiting five years for something on which there seems to be a consensus and that is just common sense. These people have done unspeakable things.

That delay is unfortunate, and I hope that the rest of the process to get this bill passed will move more quickly.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would not want to take anything away from members of Parliament and their efforts on this particular project. As I pointed out, members from all political entities came to the foreign affairs committee recognizing the issue.

We did have a pandemic, as I am sure the member will recall. It was not that long ago, and I am sure it had a bit of an impact. The pandemic was more than just two years. We also have to deal with the current and huge number of pieces of legislation that were brought forward. However, it does not mean that the government did not prioritize.

The Senate often brings forward legislation that is a priority for the House of Commons. The point I hope would be recognized is that, whether in the Senate or the House of Commons, there seems to be a great deal of political will.

I would suggest that the timing is right. We have seen, this year, the war taking place in Europe. We are seeing human rights violations in Iran. This is a good piece of legislation and a good reflection of the fact that it is time for Canada to send a strong message. Would the member not agree?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the opportunity to expand on that.

To be clear, that was 2017. It was before the pandemic. It is true that the current context and what we have seen this year have put the issue of what we do with these criminals back on the agenda. I just hope that we will be able to work together to speed this bill through the process because these recommendations date back to well before the pandemic. It should have been done a lot faster. In particular, I hope the committee will be able to follow up. What we are hearing is interesting.

How to administer this law is an interesting question. Voting for a bill is one thing, but following up and making sure it is implemented is another. We will look at the list of people who will be affected by the bill. Let us hope that goes better so we can move forward and fix some of the problems members have been raising this afternoon. That is my hope.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to get the member to comment on the fact that the House requested that the government list the IRGC as a terrorist organization. It has not done so. A bill like the one before us comes through, and it just seems to be a bit of a distraction from the fact that the government has not followed through with the will of Parliament. I am wondering if the member has any comments on that.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his remarks. I would remind the House that I was the one who moved the motion in support of Iranian women and the fight they are waging because of what is happening in Iran.

I have been to some demonstrations with Iranian women, and this was something they were calling for.

Bill S‑8 is one thing, but what happens next? Who will be targeted and affected by this bill? There is the whole issue of the Iranian regime and what this might include. It will be very interesting because these are important issues. This is another fight that is far from over, in another part of the world.

I want to once again express just how strongly we stand in solidarity with the Iranian people who are demanding more justice and equality, especially for Iranian women.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a great honour to stand in this place to speak on behalf of the residents and constituents of Edmonton Strathcona. I am particularly delighted to stand today to speak about our sanctions regime and the work that needs to be done to strengthen it and ensure it is as adequate and as strong as it can be.

We know that sanctions are one of the tools we have to hold governments and individuals around the world to the rule of law, to human rights, to democracy and to fairness and justice for their citizens. For a very long time, many members in this place have worked very hard and well together to try to increase the effectiveness of our sanctions regime and the ability of sanctions to do what we hope they will do, which is to change the course of governments and individuals, to change their behaviour and punish them for the harms they have caused without harming and punishing innocent people and citizens.

The act we are debating today is Bill S-8. This act would amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, to make consequential amendments to other acts and to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations.

The proposed legislation amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or the IRPA, and it provides Canada with much-needed abilities to better link government sanctions with authorities related to immigration enforcement. I think we can all agree that this means that not only will foreign nationals sanctioned due to the invasion of Ukraine be inadmissible to Canada, but it will also stop all previously sanctioned individuals from places like Iran, Myanmar or Burma, South Sudan, Syria, Venezuela and Zimbabwe among others.

I and the NDP are very supportive of the bill, but we need to consider, and most of my comments today will be on this, that this is a small piece of what needs to be done to strengthen Canada's sanctions regime.

The bill would not fix some of the things for which we have been calling for some time; for example, the absence of parliamentary oversight. We have very little parliamentary oversight of our sanctions regime, and I will speak to that a bit later.

This would also not fix the enforcement in areas that are not immigration related, for example, the seizure of assets. Again, I will speak to this in more depth later on, but I would raise again in the House that to date about $121 million has been seized from Russian oligarchs as part of our sanctions regime to force Russia to stop its illegal war in Ukraine. While that $121 million is an awful lot to me and probably an awful lot to most of us in this room and in the country, it is not an awful lot for Russian oligarchs.

The bill would also not fix the challenge that we as parliamentarians have with clarity. We still do not have a good system in this place that explains why the government chooses to add some people to the list to be sanctioned, how those decisions are made and how the timing of those decisions is determined. We know we work with our allies and other countries. That is very important for sanctions to be effective. However, as parliamentarians, we need to have more clarity on how those decisions are made.

As we go forward in looking at strengthening the sanctions regime, there are people in the House who have been doing very important work on this. I have to call out my colleague from the Conservative Party, the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, for his excellent work on the Magnitsky sanctions. The Deputy Prime Minister also did great work on ensuring the Magnitsky act was put in place. Of course, as some people have mentioned before, and my colleague from the Bloc mentioned just previously, the challenge is that putting a law in place does not actually matter if we do not enforce it or if we do not ensure it is adequately applied.

A perfect example of this is that with the Magnitsky sanctions, we are supposed to do a five-year review. Five years is 2022. There is some review being done in the Senate, but we have not done any review within the foreign affairs committee or within this Parliament. For me, that is the challenge we have.

I spoke briefly about the need to strengthen our sanctions regime. For years, the NDP has been pushing for a stronger sanctions regime. We are happy to see some of the important changes that this bill would bring forward, but there are things we have been asking for for years, including in the 2017 foreign affairs committee study on Canada's sanctions regime. Many of the recommendations from that study have not been implemented. We look forward to the government moving somewhat faster than it has to date to make sure those are implemented, especially considering that right now what we are seeing in Ukraine is a vital need for sanctions to be a key piece of our response to the Ukrainian war.

Another example of why our sanctions regime has not been as effective as it could be is the waiver. We saw the government in the summer, in the middle of July, put a waiver in place that would cancel some of the important sanctions we put in place against Russia. I am not going to stand here and pretend that would not have been a very difficult decision for the government to make. Our German allies and Ukrainian allies were asking for different things, and that is a very difficult situation to be in. While I did not agree with the decision that was made by the government, I do accept it was a difficult decision to make.

That said, first of all, the pipeline the waiver was supporting was a piece of equipment returned to Germany to be returned to Russia, and Russia did not pick it up. The second thing is that the pipeline it was meant to be used on has now been blown up. There is no reason whatsoever for us to still have this waiver in place and still have this lessening of our sanctions against Russia, yet we still do.

The Government of Canada has still not cancelled the waiver, which is appalling. It is something it should be doing immediately. I know the foreign affairs committee will be recommending that, if we can get out of the filibuster that has been put in place by some of our colleagues in the Conservative Party.

The other piece of our sanctions regime that I want to know about is how we can double-check it to see that what is happening is adequate and being done properly. I have talked a bit about sanctions oversight, and we know that after Russia invaded Ukraine in February, sanctions were put in place. However, we also know that those sanctions trickled out after months and months. We learned that many oligarchs had the opportunity to move their assets from Canada so they would not have those assets seized. That is a missed opportunity since those assets were supposed to help rebuild Ukraine and help with the rebuilding initiatives.

We also know that the government has failed to provide the clarity on sanctions that we have hoped for. For example, I have asked about this multiple times in the House and through Order Paper questions to get more information and details on who is being sanctioned, what is being sanctioned, what has been seized, how it is being seized and what processes are being used. However, I have never been able to get an adequate answer from the government.

In fact, one of the Order Paper questions was returned to me with a response that said the government was not 100% sure that it would be able to give me accurate information, so it provided me with no information at all. That is an interesting tactic. I would love to see somebody try to say in a high school or university course that since they are not sure they are giving all the information, they will give none at all. That is something we have problems with. We still do not have that level of clarity.

I have another concern. When the government introduced the last budget implementation act, there was a change to the way that sanctions were dealt with. In the past, there was parliamentary oversight because the government needed to record the use of the sanctions regime or the sanctions act and needed to report it to Parliament. It needed to be tabled with Parliament.

In the Budget Implementation Act, that requirement was removed. Therefore, it is now no longer the government's obligation to tell Parliament what those sanctions are or what has been seized. We could find out if we took the government to court and used a judicial remedy, but we cannot find out just through parliamentary processes.

This is taking away the right of all parliamentarians to have that transparency and to have that understanding of how our sanctions are being chosen, how they are being enforced and if they are working. A sanction is not that useful if it is not being enforced. A sanction is not that important if countries or individuals understand that it will not be enforced in Canada.

There is an interesting thing I found out as I was doing some digging around sanctions. If we want to find out what goods are coming into Canada from Russia, we can look at Russian shipping records. We cannot find that out by looking at Canadian shipping records.

It is very interesting to me that there is transparency that can be found in the U.S., the U.K., the EU and Russia, but we cannot find it here.

That is another challenge I have with our sanction regime. As I said at the beginning, this particular bill would help with some aspects of our sanction regime. I am very happy to support this legislation. I am very happy to see that it would be fixing some of those holes around our sanction regime. However, this seems very much, to me, like tinkering around the edges.

We have heard from the Senate. One of the key quotations from the Senate hearings on Bill S-8, from Canada's foremost expert on sanctions policy, Andrea Charron, was this:

While there is nothing wrong with highlighting in the Immigration and Refugee Act that inadmissibility due to sanctions is possible, this repeats a pattern whereby Canada tinkers on the margins of legislation without addressing core policy and process issues. If we are to continue to sanction autonomously with allies, we need to fix fundamental issues of policy and [fundamental issues of] process.

I believe that we have many things we still need to do. We need to have a comprehensive review of Canada's sanction regime. The NDP has proposed a study at the foreign affairs committee on Canada's sanction regime. That study was meant to have taken place during this fall's session. We are very hopeful that it will take place very quickly once the winter session begins. I urge my colleagues in the Conservative Party to stop filibustering our committee so that we can get on with the very important work of foreign affairs.

We can ensure that our sanctions are being more effectively applied. We can bring forward legislation that would align with the recommendations in the 2017 foreign affairs committee report that called for greater transparency. It called for a review of our sanctions regime and called for a parliamentary body of all parties that would assist in identifying which names and which individuals should be on the Magnitsky list and should be sanctioned by the Government of Canada.

One of our biggest problems, and I have said this many times, is that if we cannot fix our sanction regime, our sanction regime very quickly becomes not as effective and not as useful as we need it to be.

I think that members of the House have brought up circumstances where that is the case. We know that, for example, in Ukraine, sanctions are one of the key tools we have to hold Russia to account for its illegal invasion in Ukraine. It is one of the key levers that Canada can pull to force the Russian Federation to rethink this horrific and illegal attack on civilians.

It is also one of the things that we can use when other human rights abuses are raised around the world. We are seeing horrific attacks on protesters in Iran. Just this morning, I woke up to another horrific example of a protester being executed because he was fighting for his freedom. We know that there are many Iranians who are in grave danger right now. If this sanction regime can be fixed and can help the people in Iran even a little bit, it has to be done.

I am interested in looking at sanctioning a whole range of characters around the world who we know have been responsible for atrocious human rights abuses, such as what we see in Yemen and from members of Saudi Arabia. We need to be ensuring that, as a country, we are standing up for human rights, using the tools we have at our disposal for those efforts.

I also want to point out that the sanctions regime is a tool we also have to use for our feminist international assistance policy and for the feminist foreign policy that we certainly hope the government tables in Parliament very soon. We know that a huge percentage of the people who are identified by the Magnitsky sanctions and the other SEMA sanction measures are perpetrating human rights abuses that are disproportionately impacting women and girls around the world. We know that sexual violence and gender-based violence have been used as a tool to silence journalists and human rights defenders around the world. We know that rape has been used. This violence does not align with a country like Canada, which has a feminist foreign policy and a feminist international assistance policy, and we need to be looking at our foreign responses through that lens.

I would like to end my comments with this. As I was travelling here from Edmonton yesterday, I took some time to read some of the speeches from the Nobel Peace Prize winners, and I want to read a quote to the House. It is by Oleksandra Matviichuk from the Center for Civil Liberties, the 2022 Nobel Peace Prize winner. She spoke to me about the need for sanctions and why it was so important that we work with our allies to make our sanctions regime stronger.

She stated:

Peace, progress and human rights are inextricably linked. A state that kills journalists, imprisons activists, or disperses peaceful demonstrations poses a threat not only to its citizens. Such a state poses a threat to the entire region and peace in the world as a whole. Therefore, the world must adequately respond to systemic violations. In political decision-making, human rights must be as important as economic benefits or security. This approach {must} be applied in foreign policy...

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are happy that the holiday season is approaching. There are a few days left before we rise. My colleague opposite will have enough time to ask a question because I will be brief.

I appreciate my colleague's speech. I am sad to hear that she did not get an answer to her Order Paper question. I cannot believe it.

My question concerns the possibility of recourse to ensure that there are no delays or ways to hide behind the rules. Does my colleague believe that this should be discussed in committee to make sure the bill is robust and we have the tools we need to prevent that?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a system in this place where we send legislation to committee to look at it, examine it and hear from experts on it. Unfortunately, the last two bills that came before the foreign affairs committee were not given that due diligence. We were not allowed to do the required due diligence. It is the job of parliamentarians to have the strongest legislation possible. It is not the job of parliamentarians to allow the government to bring things in at the last minute and try to rush them through. Our job is to look at it, hear from experts on it and do what we can within the constraints of our time to ensure we produce adequate legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member talk about openness, transparency and accountability with respect to how such individuals would be identified. I wonder if she can explain how she sees that happening and why she considers that to be so important when it comes to something like this.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the ways we could do it is by having a parliamentary group, which would be made up of all parties, that would have the ability to scrutinize how these names are put on our list. If we had members from all parties, we would have the ability to work collaboratively and bring in experts. There are people in the world who know this work very well. Bill Browder is a perfect example.

Another thing that we need to do is work with our allies, ensuring we are working with like-minded democracies, and that our lists align with those of our allies.

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

Mr. Speaker, back in 2018, the House called for the government to recognize the IRGC as a terrorist organization. I am wondering what the hon. member has to say about the fact that it has not done that and why the NDP continues to support the government in the face of its disregarding of the actions of this place.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my comments today, we got appalling news from Iran just this morning that more protesters are being killed by the horrific IRGC regime. Everything must be done. Every possible thing must be done to hold those committing these human rights atrocities accountable. Everything also must be done to ensure that no innocent person is harmed, that innocent people are not being put at risk.

I would absolutely support using every tool we can for holding those at the top of the IRGC accountable for their terrorist, murderous actions and the horrific things they are doing against the people of Iran.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to the foreign affairs committee meeting back in 2017. I did not catch if she was a member at that time, but that committee sent a report to the House. When the member talks about the process in the House of Commons, it is important for us to note the principle of the issue was sent to a standing committee and has also now been thoroughly debated in the other chamber.

I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts on why we could perhaps be reasonably hopeful, or a little optimistic, that there is a chance we could pass it before the end of the week.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I was not a member in 2017, so I was not part of the foreign affairs committee at that time. I was not elected until 2019.

However, my colleague Hélène Laverdière, who sat on the committee at the time, was an extremely vocal advocate for the sanction regime. She did an awful lot of work bringing forward the recommendations. While I am happy that debate happened in the House, one of the recommendations was that there would be a five-year review, and we are almost at the end of five years.

While the parliamentary secretary is interested in getting this bill passed by the end of this week, just as we all are, by the end of this week we also lose the opportunity for the five-year review for the sanction regime, something that has not happened. I hope at the very beginning of 2023, when we all come back refreshed and full of energy, we will be looking at our sanction regime.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the hon. member that the NDP actually voted against listing the IRGC as a terrorist organization back in 2018. Has her party's position changed on that?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat myself, as I have said it many times already, but it is very important that the members of the IRGC who are responsible for the human rights abuses against their citizens be held accountable and that they be sanctioned. It is also important that we do everything we can to ensure they cannot come to Canada, that their assets are seized and that they be expelled from Canada.

I am very concerned as well about the potential for innocent people to be harmed by sanctions. We have seen that happen in Iran before and I, for one, will do everything I can to ensure those who are guilty are held accountable and those who are innocent do not have to pay that price.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member opposite wanted a few things for Christmas. She wanted pharmacare; 10 sick days, which has not happened; and dental care for everybody who does not have it, which has not really happened either. However, she is forced to support a government that is raising the price of gas, groceries and home heating. For Christmas, does the member want Santa to give her a way out?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member perhaps did not listen to my speech and does not know that we were debating Bill S-8 today, which is about sanctions, our sanction regime and how to strengthen our sanction regime. It is not really about my Christmas wish list, although I will say that dental care, pharmacare and sick days for workers are super important to me, and I am glad that she brought them up.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Edmonton Strathcona, who has done incredible work on this file.

Throughout the debate today, I have heard issues raised about the lack of clarity in this bill and the fact that there is not enough parliamentary oversight into the sanctions regime. I am just wondering if my hon. colleague could tell the House if that would inform her committee strategy. Does she see that there might be opportunities amongst the government and opposition sides to reach a compromise to make sure that the important aspect of parliamentary oversight is there?

I have noticed that, in public safety bills introduced earlier in this session, notably in Bill C-20 and in Bill C-26, there was a clear lack of parliamentary oversight specified. That will inform our strategy going forward. I am just wondering if the member could add some further comments on that.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the important work he has been doing in the committee on public safety as well.

Realistically, one of the key ways we ensure the legislation we pass in the House is as strong as possible is by hearing from experts, by inviting experts who know more about the topics we are legislating upon than perhaps some of us may know. The idea that this has to come forward, that we need to take that time and do that due diligence, is very important. It will, of course, inform my strategy.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how appropriate this is, but I would ask my colleagues if we could have a moment of silence. Our colleague Jim Carr just passed away. I think it would be an appropriate thing if we could just have a moment of silence and a prayer.

The House resumed from December 12, 2022, 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.

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

Madam Speaker, it is such a pleasure to be able to rise and speak to legislation that reinforces something that has been discussed and debated in the House now for quite a while, two political regimes out there and the impact they are having on the world today.

We hear a great deal from members of the opposition talking about the issue of inflation. Looking around the world at the current level of inflation rates, I often stand and talk about the reality of what is happening in the world that, in part, is causing inflation to occur, such as the two regimes I would like to spend a bit of time talking about, and why this legislation is before us today.

The war in Ukraine has caused so much hardship in many different ways. There are Ukrainian communities not only in Ukraine but around the world, and I believe that if Canada is not second it might be third behind the United States with respect to the size of our Ukrainian heritage community. I say that because, typically, whatever takes place in Ukraine, whether today or back in 2014 at the Maidan or Independence Square, or the independence of Ukraine back in the early 1990s, the people of Canada genuinely care. That should not surprise anyone when we look at the demographics of Canada. Over 1.3 million people of Ukrainian heritage call Canada home.

It is not just people of Ukrainian heritage who have made that connection, but in good part it is the neighbours, the working environment and our educational institutions, where we find a great deal of discussion concerning Ukraine. I am much more familiar with what is happening in Ukraine than I am, I must admit, with Iran, and I want to be able to amplify that. I know there are so many people in my home province, and in fact in Winnipeg, who are following the war in Ukraine, or the war that is taking place in Europe. This weekend I will be hosting a special lunch at one of our local Ukrainian churches. There is no doubt that the number one issue I will be addressing Sunday afternoon is the illegal war taking place in Ukraine.

I have asked for some numbers, and based on the community numbers provided to me, we have seen well over 12,000 people, and someone suggested as high as 15,000 people, displaced from Ukraine who are now living in Manitoba. When we look at the numbers and we drive around Winnipeg or the rural communities, whether Dauphin or even the community of Gimli, what we see is substantial support for Ukraine in the form of Ukrainian flags being flown in office and home windows. I say this because of what has taken place over the last year with respect to how the Ukrainian community, not just in Ukraine, Canada and the United States but around the world, has really come together in solidarity. The friends of Ukraine, people who are not necessarily of Ukrainian heritage, recognize that, like Canada and its allied countries, they need to be there for Ukraine in a very real and tangible way.

I remember standing up and speaking in the House, where I was talking about how we should be providing support for Ukraine. It was maybe just over a year ago. The Prime Minister had indicated to me not to forget lethal weapons. It is important that the types of supports we are putting in place for Ukraine, in working with allied countries, are really making a difference. A part of that support speaks directly to the legislation we have today. The legislation deals with one aspect of the things we are doing to show the world that Canada is behind Ukraine. That is the issue of sanctions.

When the war broke out in Ukraine, there were many demands put on the Government of Canada. We did not necessarily have to hear them, as we had ministers taking up their responsibilities and already taking action. However, we literally had thousands of people throughout the country stand up in rallies saying, “What can we do as a nation to protect the interests of Ukraine?” There were ideas such as humanitarian aid. I remember we said we would match Canadians' contributions to humanitarian aid and I believe it was a $12-million commitment that we made, though I might be out by a bit. It was just a matter of weeks, if not days, that the cap was hit, so we had to expand that cap because Canadians wanted to see humanitarian aid.

When it comes to the military, more than 35,000 Ukrainian soldiers have benefited from our Canadian Forces and the training we provided. We have provided all forms of ammunition and other types of supports. Very recently, Ukraine has received one of our tanks, a Leopard tank I believe. Members will find that we are providing multiple numbers of many different things.

The point of this is to recognize our support, whether it is lethal weapons, humanitarian aid or providing leadership with our allied countries so there would be a united front in taking on Russia. One of the areas in which Canada has made significant headway is on the sanctions. It is having an impact. Canada has taken a very strong approach in regard to a multitude of tools we can use in order to clearly indicate that there will be consequences for what is happening in Europe with this unprovoked, inhumane war that Russia commenced on Ukraine a year ago.

The people of Russia are, in fact, starting to see the consequences of economic sanctions that have been put on to the country and of sanctions for the regime itself. Canada will continue to be there for Ukraine in a time of need in regard to holding Russia accountable. Banning close associates and key supporters of the Putin regime, including those responsible for Russia's unprovoked aggression in Ukraine, from entering our country is one of the many ways we are holding Russia accountable for its crimes. We will continue to exercise all options to uphold freedom and democracy.

When we look at Bill S-8, we see that there are amendments being proposed that are needed to align Canada's sanctions and inadmissibility frameworks to ensure that those who are responsible for Russia's aggression, and already subjected to sanctions, would be inadmissible to Canada.

Individuals and entities that have been sanctioned for their support of terrorism and systemic and gross human rights violations are inadmissible to Canada. The changes we would be putting in place would allow the Canada Border Services Agency to deny entry to, and ultimately remove, sanctioned individuals, and would allow Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada officials to deny visas. Once in force, these amendments to the IRPA would apply to all foreign nationals subject to sanctions by Canada, as well as to any accompanying family members.

We can take a look at many of the actions throughout this war that are taking place today or have taken place in the last 10 or 11 months in Ukraine. We hear about human rights violations. Just yesterday we were talking about the notwithstanding clause in the House, and highlighted the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Canadian values. If we were to apply Canadian values to what is taking place in Ukraine, it is very obvious. We could show that in a classroom of grade 1 students. We could sit down and explain it to a child, and the child would understand that very clearly. That is how blatant, in Ukraine in a time of war, the types of actions that Russia has taken are. We can cite specific examples of things, from mass murder to rape and all forms of seduction and torture that are taking place in Ukraine, so it is fairly easy to put forward that particular argument.

I can change channels and talk about Iran and the regime in Iran, because even though I spend most of my time talking about Ukraine, the legislation would also apply to the regime in Iran. One can only imagine, in terms of what it is that, in particular, women today have to put up with in regard to what is taking place in the Iranian regime. Again, Canada will continue to hold the Iranian regime to account for its crimes and human rights abuses.

We stand in solidarity with the women and demonstrators across Iran who are advocating for their rights and freedoms. That is why we are implementing the strongest sanctions in the world, which include banning senior IRGC operatives from Canada. The government continues to be unwavering in its commitment to keep Canadians safe by taking all appropriate actions to counter terrorist threats in Canada and around the world. We have a moral responsibility to hold the Iranian regime to account, and we will do just that.

The restrictions on women are very upsetting. I pointed out what is taking place in Ukraine, which can be explained quite easily to virtually anyone who wants to listen. The Iranian situation has been taking place for a while. It has been very difficult in certain aspects for women, and it is gender based. The economic and social hardships that they have had to overcome are because they were born female versus male.

On the issue of human rights and Canadian values, in certain areas of the world, we all need to be concerned about advocating in a stronger and more aggressive way for the recognition of women and their proper place in world society, and there is much work that needs to be done. Some countries, sadly, are so extreme in their behaviour that it is completely unacceptable, especially with respect to discrimination against women. There are countries that will sponsor terrorism to invoke the element of fear by killing randomly and by suppressing the rights and freedoms of their own populations.

We have a great deal of debate inside this chamber about the issue of human rights and what we can do. If we were to take substantial, tangible action to deal with those hours of debate we have had over the years on this issue it would be to support this piece of legislation.

The legislation before us would send a very clear message, whether to Russia, Iran or other countries that do not share the types of values of Canada has. We have tools we can use to ensure we are promoting our values. That is what Bill S-8 is. It is about ensuring that we have sanctions and that we could prevent people from entering Canada or from ever being in Canada. It would also enable us to get rid of individuals here in Canada who have been associated with this issue in a direct way.

I encourage all members to support this legislation. It would be a wonderful message to send on this issue to see this legislation pass soon.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, on this particular piece of legislation, the member will find there are many Conservatives who are in agreement that aligning our sanctions regime with our inadmissibility criteria is a very good idea. It would make sure that we keep people out who have been found to be part of regimes that are violating people's human rights or that do not have the best interests of Canada in mind.

The member also mentioned that we have the strongest sanctions in the world. That is actually a laughable thing to say. On the question of the Russian Federation, the Republic of Poland, for example, has completely banned the import of Russian coal into the country. It has found a wide range of individuals inadmissible just simply for the promotion of the Russian Federation's positions and its symbols. It took months for the government to take Russia Today off the airwaves in Canada and off the public requirements to have it on our airwaves. It is still available online. That was more of a commentary on the member's speech.

When I do rise to speak on this, members will find there is agreement. We do not have the strongest sanctions in the world. The Republic of Poland proves it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate what the member said. I do not necessarily agree with his conclusion.

Let us look at it from the perspective of what the government brought forward. There are financial sanctions banning certain products. There are some things still flowing through Russia. Fertilizer is something that Conservatives argue that we should not even put an extra tariff on. In the end, the sanctions take many different forms.

With this legislation, we would ensure that a very powerful message would be sent about who could come to Canada. The message, very simply, would be that if someone is part of the regime causing hardship and human rights violations, we do not want them in Canada. I see that as a—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am quite shocked that the member could speak for 20 minutes about how effective the sanctions regime when he knows very well that we have 1,600 people on our sanctions regime. We have no transparency and have no enforcement. We have seized $121 million over six months. The entire Russian Federation could be put on the sanctions list, but if they are not going to enforce the them they do not matter.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, part of it is ensuring we have the appropriate tools in place. That is one of the nice things about the legislation. That would be one of the tools on the tool belt that will enable us to enforce the sanctions. We are enabling Canada border control and immigration to be able to deal with some of the sanctions.

The member is wrong to try to give the impression that there is no enforcement. There is enforcement that is in place. There is a real impact. To say that there is nothing is just not true. Canada continues to work with our allied countries. The sanctions that are being put in place, not only by Canada but also by like-minded countries around the world, are having a real, tangible impact on Russia.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, under the Special Economic Measures Act, Canada sanctioned over 1,200 individuals from Russia, Ukraine and Belarus due to Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine. In support of women's rights in Iran, I think Canada has imposed sanctions on over 215 individuals and entities in Iran.

Can the government confirm that under the present legislation, Bill S-8, that the members of the sanctioned entities can also be found inadmissible? Secondly, if the sanctioned individuals are already in Canada, can they be removed under this legislation?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, from my understanding of the legislation, the member is quite correct. This legislation is a wonderful tool that would enable Canada to support that enforcement. My New Democrat colleague wants to ensure enforcement, and this goes a long way in supporting that.

We want people to know that there is inappropriate, inhumane behaviour taking place, and that sort of behaviour is not acceptable. We do not want individuals of that nature coming to Canada and, for those who are already in Canada, it would enable us to get them out of Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Edmonton Strathcona raises a good point that the government is woefully lacking an enforcement regime for some of the measures that are undertaken with regard to sanctions. This bill, Bill S-8, would put in place a framework to be able to reject permanent residence, citizenship or refugee applications on the basis of those who are on a sanctions list.

I am wondering if my colleague opposite can confirm that no persons on a sanctions list have applied for any of these forms of immigration to Canada or have made safe passage to Canada already.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we believe there are individuals in Canada that this legislation, if and when passed, would have an impact on. If someone has gone online to start the process of an application to come to Canada for a nephew, a niece or whoever it may be, it is hard to give a conclusive answer to what the member is proposing.

The legislation, in principle, would have a very positive impact in ensuring that we could prevent people on the sanctions list from being able to come into Canada. I have confidence, arguably, probably more confidence than the Conservative Party does, in our civil service, and believe that it understands the sanctions list and will not let people slip through.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague opposite, if I understood correctly, just confirmed that there are individuals or extended family members in Canada who perhaps might be on the sanctions regime. How many people does that apply to? How many people who are sanctioned by Canada, that sanctions would apply to, have been allowed into Canada by the government through our current immigration policies?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have no idea how many Stephen Harper let in. The member is trying to turn this into a political issue by asking if there could be people in Canada. Could the member say she can guarantee there are no sanctioned people that Stephen Harper ever let in? From my perspective, it is a ridiculous question.

With the legislation we are passing, ultimately, there could be individuals or their family members who are sanctioned, but who came to Canada two years ago before the sanctions were put in place. I suspect there might even be people who Stephen Harper and the former Conservative government let in.

This does not have to be as political as the member is trying to make it. We would be making a very strong statement to the world by bringing forward this legislation, and I hope that the Conservative Party would want to pass it.

[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.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill for her advocacy on this issue.

I am wondering if she could elaborate on her comments with respect to inauthentic visa letters.

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

Madam Speaker, I am glad that my colleague asked this question. There was another item in the Globe and Mail article today that suggests Senator McPhedran, in her affidavit, may have submitted information about what were deemed to be 640 inauthentic letters to the government in September 2021.

During that time, my office communicated with IRCC, GAC and other officials over 30 times between August 2021 and July 2022 on the file that pertains to this issue. Not once did they confirm or deny that these visa letters were authentic or inauthentic.

This story raises all sorts of concerns about who knew what in the government and at what time. At the very least, if this is true, my constituent missed the opportunity to apply for a real program. How many other people did this happen to?

I implore colleagues of all political stripes to work to get the ministers, the former ministers and the staff named in this affidavit in front of committee or in front of the House to find out what really went on. This has huge implications for the fairness, equity and integrity of our immigration system.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, we are here today to talk about Bill S-8.

For the benefit of my constituents who may be interested in following this, this is an act that started its life in the other place last spring, a month or so before Parliament rose for the summer. We are talking about 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. Last year the senators recognized a gap in the law when it comes to the imposition of sanctions against other countries, organizations or individuals for breaches of international peace and security, as well as human rights violations.

The senators fast-tracked this legislation. It is not contentious; I believe that it has support from all parties in this House. However, unfortunately, it has been parked in the House of Commons since early fall; here we are finally, in February, debating it. What was the delay? What is the holdup? This needs to be done.

Bill S-8 was introduced around the time of Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, an unjustified and unjust war, as well as a blatant violation of international law. The timing of this legislation is not coincidental. It is in response to the illegal invasion by Russia of our friends in Ukraine. The legislation is long overdue.

What does it do? Canada, on the advice of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, can and does impose sanctions against certain states or individuals. This is pursuant to two Canadian laws: the Special Economic Measures Act and the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, better known as the Magnitsky law.

Under the Special Economic Measures Act, Canada can impose sanctions for grave breaches of international peace, gross and systemic human rights violations, or actions of corruption. Under the Magnitsky law, Canada can impose sanctions on foreign nationals responsible for, or complicit in, extrajudicial killings, torture or gross human rights violations.

I think some background on the Magnitsky act would be useful. There was an American investor by the name of Bill Browder who worked and invested in Russia's economy after the end of the Cold War and after Russia opened up its economy to the world. Mr. Browder made a lot of money, and this drew the attention of the Russian government, particularly President Vladimir Putin. Mr. Browder's Russian lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky, also drew the attention and the ire of the Russian authorities. Eventually, Mr. Magnitsky died in a Russian prison, clearly the victim of an extrajudicial killing, torture and a gross violation of human rights, to pick up on the language of the Magnitsky law.

Mr. Browder escaped Russia, and he used his influence to convince first the United States and then other countries, including Canada, to adopt what has become known as Magnitsky's law. This law, different of course and unique in each country, gives the government of said country the right and ability to impose financial sanctions against foreign nationals responsible for or complicit in such horrific actions. That is what the Magnitsky act does.

We had Mr. Browder appear before this Parliament's Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development on February 10, 2022. One should note the timing. This was exactly two weeks before Putin's Russia invaded Ukraine. We did not know that was going to happen, although there was every indication that Putin would invade Ukraine. He had done it before, in 2014, shortly after Russia hosted the Winter Olympics in nearby Sochi. At that time, Putin waved goodbye to the world and then ordered his tanks into the Crimean Peninsula. Sadly, the world looked the other way.

Seven years later, in 2022, Putin was again flexing his muscles. Again, he was hoping and expecting that the world would be looking the other way. That was the context when Mr. Browder was giving his testimony in front of the committee.

Here is a sample quote from his testimony:

As we look forward to what to do about this situation, my prescription is to make a list of the 50 biggest oligarchs who look after Putin's money. There's no mystery as to who these people are...and we hit these people with Magnitsky sanctions.

We start with five before any invasion to show Putin we're serious. We then tell him that he has 10 days to pull back from the border or we hit him with another five. If he invades, we go after the rest of the 40. I believe this would stop Putin in his tracks and he wouldn't invade Ukraine.

Three months later, on May 17, 2022, Mr. Browder appeared before another committee, the public safety committee, as part of its Russia study. Again, members can note the timing. This meeting was taking place a few months after Putin invaded Ukraine. At that meeting, this question, or challenge, was put to Mr. Browder: “Clearly, sir, something went wrong. Either the [Canadian] government didn't take your advice or you underestimated Putin's propensity for recklessness.”

This was part of Mr. Browder's answer:

[Putin] had looked at our conduct, and when I say “our”, I mean Canada, the United States, the EU and the U.K. He looked at our conduct after the invasion of Georgia—nothing; after the illegal annexation of Crimea—effectively nothing; after MH17 was shot down—nothing; and, after the Salisbury poisonings—nothing. He was of the opinion that we weren't going to do anything if he invaded Ukraine.

Historians will debate whether we and our allies acted soon enough, used our sanctioning tools aggressively enough or did everything in our power to convince Putin to back off. Maybe we could have done more, and with the benefit of hindsight we probably could have done more and should have done more, but I want to be clear that it is not as if we are doing nothing.

After the illegal annexation of the Crimean peninsula in 2014, Canada, using the existing Special Economic Measures Act, imposed sanctions against more than 1,000 individuals and 241 entities linked to ongoing violations of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. Our Magnitsky Law, parenthetically, came into force some time later, in 2017.

Could we have done more to help our Ukrainian friends? Probably, but today we are doing the right thing. It is a small thing, but it is the right thing. With Bill S-8, we are amending three other acts and expanding certain regulations, all pertaining to how we deal with refugees, and in particular refugees who, when they present themselves at our border, are discovered to be subject to sanctions under one or another of our sanction laws.

The Minister of Public Safety put it this way: “Banning close associates and key supporters of Putin's regime, including those responsible for this unprovoked aggression from entering our country is one of the many ways in which we're holding Russia accountable for its crimes.” We can argue about the veracity of the statement that Canada acted in “many ways” to hold Russia accountable. That is a debate for another day.

I would wrap it up with the following comment. I and all members of Parliament, I believe, have been banned from entering Russia. After this bill, Bill S-8, passes, Mr. Putin and his oligarchs would be banned from entering Canada, as if they would ever risk being arrested and tried for war crimes.

This is important legislation. It is non-controversial. It has the support of the Conservative Party. We have always been in support of the decisive use of our Magnitsky act to sanction international criminals. It needs to be passed soon, and it needs to receive royal assent to close the gap.

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

Madam Speaker, I was encouraged by many of the thoughts the member expressed to the House, and I would concur that at the end of the day there is a powerful statement to be made by the passage, with what appears to be unanimous support, of the principles of the legislation.

I just want to ask the member to provide his comments in regard to the following. When we have legislation of this nature and it ultimately passes, or at least the principles of the legislation, it sends a wonderful and powerful message abroad, a message that people need to hear, which is that there is a consequence to regimes that behave against Canadian values. Would he not agree?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, yes, the Magnitsky act sends a powerful signal to the world that Canada stands up for human rights. If we read the story about Sergei Magnitsky and how he was mistreated for doing the right thing, then I believe the world will support us as we try to do our best to support human rights around the world. It sends a good, strong signal. I am happy this is one act that, and I am assuming this, we can pass unanimously in the House, and that too would send a strong message.

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

Madam Speaker, as mentioned, Conservatives are supportive of this legislation, but the challenge we have is the difference between words and implementation. I think of how the terrorist Omar Khadr was given $11 million, and we rolled out the carpet. He killed an American sergeant in Afghanistan. These are the problems we have. Again, with Iran, the Liberals have the right words, but not the actions with respect to the Islamic regime to bring in these actions and call the guards on these terrorist organizations.

I wonder if the member could make some comments about what the Liberals say and do with respect to following through with legislation.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge is absolutely right. Just because we have a good law does not mean that it is administered properly. He raised a couple of examples about citizens of this or other countries who go abroad to be involved in terrorist actions and then come home again and how they are treated.

It is a problem in Canada as well. Not only are ISIS war brides coming home, but also the men who were actively involved in working with the ISIS army, and they apparently have a right to come back to Canada. How are we going to treat them? Are they going to be charged here under our criminal laws? Do we have evidence available to properly prosecute these people who have committed crimes abroad? Are we going to be able to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? These are the real challenges that face Canada while living in a dangerous world.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member brought up in his intervention how we would treat people who are returning from overseas who have potentially committed serious war crimes or crimes against humanity, so I wonder if he can elaborate on this matter.

We have individuals who either fought for, fought with or are sympathizers of ISIS, such as Daesh, a proto-state across the Syrian-Iraqi border, which committed many war crimes and crimes against humanity. We now have families who are returning from a specific camp, which is not too far from Al-Hol, and there are about 70,000 POWs and families being held there. These Canadians are being returned to Canada and being charged with offences by the RCMP for travelling overseas to join a terrorist organization and for membership in a terrorist organization.

Beyond that, it is very difficult for the Canadian government to prove crimes that were conducted overseas because the collection of evidence may not be ideal, the witnesses might be dead or we just may not know who they are, so I wonder if the member can elaborate on that, because that is part of the sanctions regime as well.

Some of these individuals should be sanctioned, and others are not being sanctioned because we do not know they are members of these organizations. This is where the difficulty lies. We can only make someone inadmissible if we know what they are being made inadmissible for, and part of this legislation will need a lot of intelligence-gathering.

I am just putting a lot of ideas on the table for the member to add to the discussion.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, indeed, this creates a big challenge for Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada recently ruled that so-called ISIS brides must be returned to Canada, and furthermore, that even men who fought for ISIS or Daesh, if Canadian citizens, have the right to come back to Canada pursuant to section 6 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is the section of our charter that states that we all have the right to stay in Canada, leave Canada or, if we are out of Canada, to come back to Canada.

The Supreme Court of Canada has recently decided that these ISIS warriors have that right. They will be arrested as soon as they land at a Canadian airport, but as the member indicated, where does the proof come from, where does the evidence come from to convict these people under our Criminal Code? The evidence is probably overseas. The witnesses are certainly overseas, and the witnesses are not going to be co-operative. We do not have the power to subpoena witnesses from overseas. This is a challenge for the government, and we are looking forward to seeing how it is going to resolve that problem.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will continue on a different track. Within Bill S-8 there are provisions for persons to be able to challenge being put on a sanctions list, but they are not allowed to appeal being found inadmissible to Canada if they happen to be on a sanctions list.

During the debate on the sanctions for the victims and the Sergei Magnitsky act, there was a provision put in to ensure that a person who was to be listed would have the right to redress and could actually challenge the fact that they had been put on the list.

In this piece of legislation, one of the provisions specifically says that one cannot appeal the fact that one has been found inadmissible, because the idea is that the process has already taken place in the sanctions regime. I wonder if the member would comment on how there would be no right of appeal if one is found inadmissible to Canada under IRPA, which would be expanded to all those who find themselves on one of the sanctions lists that Canada keeps, and that they would need to seek redress for sanctions but not for inadmissibility.

Does he see this as a problem or as an opportunity to expedite the deportation of individuals who find themselves in Canada unlawfully?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's questions are becoming more challenging. Yes, indeed the intent of the legislation we are talking about today is to prohibit people who have been sanctioned from entering Canada. There are some people who have been sanctioned, maybe just because they live in a state that we have sanctioned, and they do have the right to appeal, to have their case heard and to convince Immigration Canada to allow them to come into Canada. I do not know how these cases are going to be worked out if we do not have the ability to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that people are actually guilty of crimes.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded vote, please.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the division stands deferred until Monday, February 13, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The hon. parliamentary secretary is rising on a point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House at this time, you would find unanimous consent to call it 1:30 p.m. so we could begin private members' hour.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

It is agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.