Hon. Michael L. MacDonald: Honourable senators, I rise today to address Bill S-8, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The bill we have before us seeks to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or IRPA, in order to do several things.

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.

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

Lastly, it amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations to provide that the ministers 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.

The government has introduced these measures, among others, to respond to Russia’s bloody invasion of Ukraine. We are now entering the third month of that invasion, and we have all witnessed the horrifying scenes of Ukrainian cities and towns being destroyed and innocent Ukrainians being targeted by the Russian military.

Honourable senators, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has forced nearly 8 million people from their homes, with nearly 7 million of them now having been forced to leave Ukraine itself. Unfortunately, that number continues to grow.

I certainly agree that this humanitarian catastrophe is something that we cannot ignore.

We have also all viewed the disturbing reports of the atrocities committed by the Russian military against civilians. I know that the images associated with these actions have shocked every senator in this chamber who have seen them.

In the face of these accounts, I agree completely with the government that those who actively support the Putin regime cannot be permitted to remain immune to the consequences of their actions.

I agree that since Canada has imposed sanctions against individuals who are part of or are supporting the Russian regime, it is logical to expand the provisions of IRPA in order to incorporate all the grounds of the Special Economic Measures Act in order to ensure that the foreign nationals who are sanctioned are inadmissible to Canada. That is to say they will be inadmissible as long as they do not claim refugee protection under the provisions of IRPA.

In this respect, I note that the Minister of Public Safety has been careful to note that:

Foreign nationals who are inadmissible to Canada due to sanctions will still be eligible to have a refugee claim considered by the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board, and will have access to a full pre-removal risk assessment.

One can readily agree that in circumstances where sanctioned individuals may have, for example, turned on the Putin regime and then arrived at a Canadian port of entry, it is wise to have some flexibility regarding their inadmissibility. However, I am concerned that, as is often the case, the supposed strong measures that the government is introducing in a piece of legislation may, in fact, not be quite as strong as they appear.

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.

This cautionary note aside, I nevertheless agree that the bill we have before us is at least another tool in our toolbox that we can use to sanction those who are supporters of the Putin regime and who effectively underwrite its despicable actions.

I am very heartened by the scope of measures that we are finally passing through the parliamentary process.

Just a few weeks ago, for example, I had the privilege of speaking to Senator Omidvar’s bill, Bill S-217, which would permit the repurposing of the assets of individuals and entities that have been sanctioned in connection with crimes — such as Russia’s premeditated, unjust and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine — in order, potentially, to assist the victims of such acts.

I do believe that these sorts of measures, if correctly applied — with loopholes minimized — can have an important impact. They will be particularly impactful if applied in conjunction with similar actions taken by like-minded states.

In this respect, Professor Brooke Harrington recently wrote in The Atlantic that some of Russia’s best-known oligarchs — persons Professor Harrington describes as “business figures who have built up huge fortunes, in most cases through their connections to the state” — are now calling for an end to the war.

Professor Harrington noted that the billionaire industrialist Oleg Deripaska, and Mikhail Fridman, a founder of Russia’s largest private bank, have both urged an end to Putin’s war.

She argues that such calls were directly related to the fact that oligarchs themselves have been targeted for the support they provide to the current Russian regime.

I think we have to hope that, in the long term, such emerging divisions within Russia’s elite class will start to have an impact.

What I only wish is that, collectively, the West had been more effective and proactive before the current phase of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine erupted this past February.

(1520)

What I lament in relation to Ukraine is that our responses have really been behind the curve. We need to remember that Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine really began in 2014, when Crimea was seized from Ukraine in complete violation of international law.

While I think the previous government did its best to respond decisively to that invasion — for instance, by leading the charge on expelling Russia from the G8 — the West’s collective response was less than effective, and herein lies the problem.

We are often reluctant to respond strongly to events that do not remain front and centre in the news. When such events fade from the headlines, so too does our interest. We can see that today through our completely ineffective response to the genocide in the Xinjiang region of China and to the Chinese government regime’s repeated threats to invade Taiwan. But neither of these events are front and centre in the news. We have few images of Chinese concentration camps, so our response peters away to ineffectiveness.

On the question of China, of its threats against Taiwan, its genocide and its continued support for Russia, our government remains far behind our allies in responding decisively to this growing threat. I want us, as a country, to be able to move beyond simple virtue signalling when a crisis suddenly erupts and when it is already too late. As a country, we must have a more strategic, decisive and effective international policy.

The bill we have before us today is a reactive measure. Given the threat that we all face in Ukraine, I support this measure for what it is, and I agree that it is needed. But, going forward, I do call on the government — and all of us in this chamber — to do better.

I believe that in today’s more threatening global environment, doing better is now an imperative for everyone’s national security. I encourage honourable senators to get this bill to committee as soon as possible so Parliament can expedite passage of this legislation.

I’m not sure if Senator Harder and I have been sanctioned by the Russians yet, but I suspect we will be now.

Thank you, colleagues, and let’s get this bill to committee.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Diane F. Griffin on February 21, 2022)

The government continuously monitors Canada’s insolvency laws to ensure that they remain responsive to the needs of Canadians and marketplace developments.

With respect to the treatment of Registered Education Savings Plans (RESPs) under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, it is important to note that the RESP features that provide flexibility in case a child does not pursue further studies also increase the risk that an RESP could shelter assets from creditor claims in a bankruptcy, without ensuring that RESP funds would benefit the child. RESPs as currently structured are not “locked in” – the subscriber can access contributions at any time, and RESP funds can be used for non-educational purposes. As part of our monitoring of insolvency laws, we will continue to look for any changes in RESPs, such as a lock-in mechanism, that could allow for an equitable balancing of interests among creditors and RESP beneficiaries, while preserving the integrity of Canada’s insolvency regime.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Tony Loffreda on March 24, 2022)

The disbursement quota (DQ) is determined as 3.5% of a charity’s assets that are not used directly in charitable activities or administration, subject to certain thresholds. These assets are reported at line 5900 of Form T3010, but line 4140 can also be used to estimate these assets.

An analysis of 2019 T3010 data found that of the 14,918 charities that appeared to meet the asset thresholds, approximately 82% met their DQ requirement. However, these statistics are only estimates, as the data provided by charities in their Form T3010 has not necessarily been verified for accuracy by the CRA. Generally, an audit would be required to determine whether a charity is subject to, and met, the DQ requirement.

Some charities may not meet their DQ for various reasons – for example, they may experience operational difficulties which limit their ability to expend funds. Charities can request a DQ reduction if they experience circumstances beyond their control and have exhausted other means to make up a DQ shortfall. On average, the CRA receives three of these requests per year.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Rosemary Moodie on April 5, 2022)

Within the first year of the Disaggregated Data Action Plan, Statistics Canada released new data disaggregated by specific racialized groups, Indigenous persons and women by improving and expanding data collection of key surveys, including the Labour Force Survey, Canadian Community Health Survey, General Social Survey and the new Canadian Survey on Business Conditions. Population projections for Indigenous persons and racialized groups have been developed for the next several decades. Groups have been engaged to develop options for appropriately collecting and disseminating data on interactions with police. Based on 2021 Census data, Statistics Canada released its first comprehensive profile of the gender-diverse population on April 27. Access to all the data is provided through the enhanced website of Statistics Canada’s Gender, Diversity and Inclusion Statistics Hub. The Disaggregated Data Action Plan allows for a deeper understanding of the socioeconomic conditions and lived experiences of sub-populations and its information is already being taken into account in decision making.

Senator Gold: Thank you for your supplementary question. The government has enormous respect for former Chief Justice McLachlin, the contributions she made to the Supreme Court and to our jurisprudence.

I have no knowledge whether there were communications between the government and Justice McLachlin.

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker: Are senators ready for the question?

Senator Gold: Would the senator take a question?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is permission granted?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Your time is up, senator. Senator Housakos would like to ask you a question. Would you like to ask for another five minutes?

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Certainly, Senator Dupuis.

Hon. Renée Dupuis: Would Senator Miville-Dechêne take a question?

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Of course.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Of course, Senator Cormier.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. René Cormier: Would the senator agree to take a question?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is leave granted? Please continue.

Hon. Claude Carignan: Would Senator Saint-Germain take a question?

Senator Miville-Dechêne: That’s exactly why I’m saying that in this case, if we want to do a pre-study, it would be urgent to get on it instead of just talking about it. If we continue to discuss this and vote next week, we’re losing out on 10 potential days of work.

No, I’ve never experienced that problem before, and I probably shouldn’t have compared journalism to politics. I just wanted to highlight this idea of using all of the time available to get things done, instead of simply talking about deadlines and saying that we don’t have enough time.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

[English]

Senator Francis: Is the federal government at least willing to forgive debt for Islanders living at or below the poverty line? If so, what does this process involve and how long does it take? What are the consequences of non-repayment for this population?

Hon. René Cormier: Would you agree that the Senate is the master of its own affairs? We can read the following about the Rules of the Senate on the Parlinfo site, and I quote:

The Rules of the Senate allow the Senate to examine the subject matter of a bill before the bill has been passed by the House of Commons. The bill must have been given first reading in the House of Commons but not yet been passed by it and, therefore, not introduced in the Senate.

In the context of studying a quasi-constitutional act on which the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages worked for a very long time, demonstrating the complexity of this constitutional act, would you agree, Senator Gagné, that a pre‑study is, in this case, entirely appropriate in our context?