SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 146 - Dec/12/22

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Dec/12/22 12:46:39 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-8

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?

189 words

All Topics

Mr. Adam Chambers

Dec/12/22 12:47:53 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-8

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

8 words

All Topics

Mr. Glen Motz (Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, CPC)

Dec/12/22 12:48:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-8

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.

1144 words

All Topics

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP)

Dec/12/22 12:56:18 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-8

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?

97 words

All Topics

Mr. Glen Motz

Dec/12/22 12:56:59 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-8

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.

72 words

All Topics

Mr. Philip Lawrence (Northumberland—Peterborough South, CPC)

Dec/12/22 12:57:38 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-8

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?

68 words

All Topics

Mr. Glen Motz

Dec/12/22 12:58:04 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-8

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.

47 words

All Topics

Ms. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau (Laurentides—Labelle, BQ)

Dec/12/22 12:58:30 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-8

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?

75 words

All Topics

Mr. Glen Motz

Dec/12/22 12:59:08 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-8

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.

119 words

All Topics

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Dec/12/22 1:00:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-8

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.

90 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/12/22 1:00:47 p.m.
Watch

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to split his time? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

30 words

Mr. Yves Perron

Dec/12/22 1:00:54 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-8

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.

1191 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Dec/12/22 1:09:32 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-8

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?

168 words

All Topics

Mr. Yves Perron

Dec/12/22 1:10:45 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-8

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.

170 words

All Topics

Mr. Marc Dalton (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, CPC)

Dec/12/22 1:11:47 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-8

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?

109 words

All Topics

Mr. Yves Perron

Dec/12/22 1:12:53 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-8

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.

164 words

All Topics

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP)

Dec/12/22 1:13:52 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-8

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.

145 words

All Topics

Mr. Yves Perron

Dec/12/22 1:14:34 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-8

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.

95 words

All Topics

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Dec/12/22 1:15:23 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-8

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.

1711 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Dec/12/22 1:25:48 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-8

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.

114 words

All Topics