THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 9, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade met with videoconference this day at 11:30 a.m. [ET] to study the Canadian Foreign Service and elements of the foreign policy machinery within Global Affairs Canada; and to study 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.
Senator Peter M. Boehm (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: My name is Peter Boehm. I’m a senator from Ontario and chair of the committee. I wish to introduce committee members who are participating in today’s meeting: Senator Gwen Boniface from Ontario, Senator Jane Cordy from Nova Scotia, Senator Mary Coyle from Nova Scotia, Senator Marty Deacon from Ontario, Senator Amina Gerba from Quebec, Senator Stephen Greene from Nova Scotia, Senator Michael MacDonald from Nova Scotia, Senator Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec, Senator Victor Oh from Ontario, Senator Mohamed-Iqbal Ravalia from Newfoundland and Labrador and Senator David Richards from New Brunswick. Also joining us is Senator Ratna Omidvar from Ontario. I wish to welcome all of you, as well as people across Canada who may be watching us today.
[Translation]
Respected colleagues, we are conducting a hybrid meeting. I wish to remind senators and witnesses taking part by video conference to please keep your microphones muted at all times, unless recognized by name by the chair. I will ask senators to use the “raise hand” feature to be recognized. Those present here in the committee room can signal to Ms. Lemay, the clerk, their desire to ask questions or comment. We are very pleased to welcome the four deputy ministers of Global Affairs Canada for the first 90 minutes of our meeting.
[English]
I have not looked at the history, but I think this is the first time we’ve had all four deputy ministers with us together.
During the second part of our meeting, starting at one o’clock, we will continue our consideration of Bill S-8.
I will now introduce our witnesses from Global Affairs Canada. We welcome Marta Morgan, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs; David Morrison, Deputy Minister of International Trade; Christopher MacLennan, Deputy Minister of International Development; and Cindy Termorshuizen, Associate Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Other Global Affairs Canada officials joining us today are Alexandre Lévêque, Assistant Deputy Minister of Strategic Policy; Francis Trudel, Assistant Deputy Minister of Human Resources; Annie Boyer, Director General, Financial Planning and Management and Deputy Chief Financial Officer; and Stéphane Cousineau, Assistant Deputy Minister, International Platform Branch.
Welcome, everyone and thank you for being with us. I understand that Ms. Morgan will give the opening remarks for about eight minutes or so, to be followed by questions from senators.
Marta Morgan, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Global Affairs Canada: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It’s a real pleasure for me to be here virtually with all of you today. Let me begin by thanking this committee for the important and timely study that it is undertaking on the state and trajectory of Canada’s foreign policy capacities. My deputy minister colleagues and I are following the committee study very closely and are pleased to be able to come here today and speak with you.
In leading an organization as complex as Global Affairs Canada, we are keenly aware of the exceptional and essential role that we and the workforce that we lead play in projecting and advancing Canadian interests and values globally. We are entrusted with the responsibility to advance Canada’s foreign policy interests. This includes diplomatic relations, international law, trade, consular support for Canadians and international assistance.
Every day we work to fulfill this mandate. We’re constantly reflecting on how we can adapt, improve and continue to prepare the department to effectively deliver, while remaining flexible to address emerging challenges and seize new opportunities.
[Translation]
Organizational transformation is not unfamiliar to us. Just about 10 years ago, the foreign policy, trade and development portfolios of Canada’s international engagement were amalgamated into a single department that we now know as Global Affairs Canada.
Since that time, we have consolidated this ambitious transformation, emerging as a single organization, building a consolidated workforce, establishing shared financial and management systems, enhancing policy coherence, and leveraging our foreign policy, international assistance, trade and consular toolkits as force multipliers to amplify Canada’s impact internationally.
Global Affairs Canada is a multifaceted and multi-mandate organization, serving three ministers, comprised of over 13,000 employees, with a network abroad that includes 178 missions in 110 countries. Global Affairs Canada provides the international platform for 21 other government departments and agencies working abroad, six provincial governments, and six foreign governments and international organizations co-located with our missions. Nearly 6,700 of our employees are located abroad, with the vast majority being locally engaged staff that bring specific expertise, local knowledge and diversity to Canada’s presence globally.
[English]
We are continually expanding our capacity to deal with the biggest geostrategic challenges facing Canada, increasing our capacity through the creation of temporary task forces to help adapt to emerging situations, while developing longer-term strategies for sustaining and strengthening our depth of expertise on specific countries, regions or global thematic issues. Faced with significant risks that are inherent in service abroad, we have strategically allocated new resources through duty-of-care funding since 2017 to enable the department to better fulfill its obligation to mitigate risks to our employees and their dependents.
My department has put in place aggressive hiring strategies in the last couple of years, leading to more regular recruitment processes at all classification levels so that we have the right people at the right time in the right positions.
In particular, I note that we resumed post-secondary recruitment with two nationwide entry-level Foreign Service recruitment processes, one launched in 2019 and one in 2021.
Global Affairs has seen recent improvements in our employment equity representation, and we have incorporated diversity, inclusion and anti-racism into our internal governance. We’ve been deepening our programming and policy expertise as well. In 2020-21 alone, the Government of Canada provided $8.1 billion in international assistance, including development, humanitarian and peace and security grants and contributions. Through our Trade Commissioner Service, we’ve directly supported over 10,000 Canadian companies in the past year, the majority of them small- and medium-sized enterprises.
The pandemic greatly accelerated the introduction and use of new tools to collaborate, share information, manage relationships and provide services in new ways, and we continue to invest in modern IT solutions. Confronted with unprecedented international context in recent years, Global Affairs Canada has risen to the challenge, demonstrating incredible resilience, adaptability and capabilities.
A few examples are the repatriation of over 62,000 Canadians at the beginning of COVID, the international dimensions of the COVID response, Afghanistan and the response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. We’ve coordinated efforts with key allies, provided financial assistance, sanctioned over a thousand individuals and entities, and are continuing our efforts across all domains.
[Translation]
These examples highlight that Global Affairs Canada is no stranger to navigating a complex and volatile international landscape, where global threats and issues have repercussions for the interests and well-being of Canadians.
We recognize the challenge ahead of us. Our diplomacy today is affected by both changes to the world around us and to our operational environment.
These changes include shifting global power dynamics, evolving global governance, emerging threats, the transformation of work and technology, and changing demographics.
These changes call for us to think strategically about how our department can continue to advance effectively Canada’s interests and engage globally in the decades to come.
[English]
I am pleased to be able to share with this committee today that, last week, Minister Joly and I launched a review of certain aspects of the organization to strengthen the department’s capacity to engage globally so that it remains well equipped to fulfill its mandates in the long term in a rapidly changing world.
This exercise will be a targeted assessment of our fundamental capacities as a department. It will focus on four core pillars: our people, to further increase our ability to recruit, retain and develop a diverse workforce with the right diplomatic and leadership qualities and skill sets to meet the global challenges of today and tomorrow; our policy capacity, further reinforcing the capacity to anticipate and identify opportunities and challenges to advance and protect Canadian interests; our digital and technological capacities, harnessing the digital tools, infrastructure and sustainable funding we need to project our interests and values in an increasingly virtual world, to have access to data and analytics and to ensure that we can safeguard our information and networks from cyberthreats; and finally, our global presence, ensuring that we have the capacity and an effective process in place to assess and adjust our global presence on an ongoing basis as priorities shift and emerging situations arise.
I’d like to conclude with three thoughts for the committee. First, we’re in a very volatile and unpredictable moment in international relations; ensuring that our department is prepared for this is very important. Second, it’s a team effort: We need to have the expertise and organizational strength across our diplomatic, trade and development lanes and we need the corporate backbone to support us. Finally, it will be important to be strategic in how we invest for the future in the key areas that are critical for Canada’s interests. In this regard, we very much look forward to the work that this committee is doing, which will certainly provide insight and helpful recommendations.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Morgan. Before we begin with questions, I remind the committee members participating by video conference to use the “raise hand” function to let us know they want to be added to the clerk’s list.
[English]
I also wish to inform members of the committee that you’ll each have a maximum of only four minutes for the first round, and this includes questions and answers. Therefore, both to members of the committee and to officials, my usual advice is to try to be concise and keep your preambles down to a minimum in terms of their length. Of course, we can always go to a second round if we have time.
We’ll open the questioning now. If you agree, Ms. Morgan, we’ll direct them to you and then you can decide if you want to pass them on to your colleagues, depending on the area.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: I thank all the witnesses for joining us.
My question is about the mandate letters of the Immigration and Foreign Affairs ministers, which call for “expanding fast and flexible support for fragile and emerging democracies”, and about the proposal by the member for Lac-Saint-Jean to create an emergency component to respond to humanitarian crises, including the opening of emergency visa offices and special emergency visa missions, partial waiving of biometric requirements, an expanded sponsorship program, airlifts and an immigration reserve force. Are any of those six recommendations already implemented or in the process of being implemented at Global Affairs Canada?
Ms. Morgan: Thank you very much for the question. I think this question should be put to my colleague deputy minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. Global Affairs Canada provides an international platform for all Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada activities. As I said earlier, we play an important role by providing an international platform for a number of other departments.
[English]
IRCC is the biggest department that we support globally and internationally.
[Translation]
We work together very closely when the two departments’ mandates intersect. For instance, we provide assistance through our platform to repatriate Afghan refugees and to help Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada bring Ukrainians here, to Canada.
The Chair: You have a minute and a half left.
Senator Mégie: My second question is about the 2016 census. According to that census, 22% of Canadians identified as a visible minority. Members of visible minorities apparently account for only 8% of your department’s foreign service. What steps are you taking to ensure that the foreign service is representative of the country’s diversity? If those steps are already underway, which would be good, how are you measuring the progress made?
Ms. Morgan: Thank you very much for the question. We are making a lot of progress on diversity and inclusion issues. Right now, 57% of our employees are women, 6% are people of Indigenous origin and 26% are members of visible minorities. The department has been working hard to promote diversity and inclusion, including an anti-racism strategy and a program to help managers support talented employees to accelerate promotion in senior management ranks.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Morgan.
[English]
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for being here this afternoon, I greatly appreciate it. My first question concerns the GAC review that was announced on May 30 by Ms. Morgan and Minister Joly. This report is timely and lines up nicely with some of the review intent that we have but I have some questions and perhaps some concerns.
This report and its findings will be tabled in Parliament or otherwise made public. My concern, which I’m hoping you can address, has to do with the timeline you have set and published for yourselves for completion by March of next year. Is that enough time to do the breadth, depth and the type of work that you’d like to do on such a comprehensive and important review?
Ms. Morgan: Thank you very much for the question. We see the work that Minister Joly and I launched last week as very complementary to the work that this committee is doing. It really demonstrates the timeliness of the need to look at our foreign affairs capacity and capability and the recognition by Minister Joly, the government and the Senate committee of the critical importance of the work that we do.
The time frame that we have set out is ambitious. I would expect that in our report there will be areas for future work. I don’t see this as a one-time, beginning-and-end process, but rather a process where we will be able to develop more of a blueprint for the next five years: What do we need to do now? What can we do with relatively few resources? Where might we need additional resources? What are the issues that we’re going to need to work on over a period of a number of years in order to really make progress?
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for looking at that work and the work we need to do.
I would like to ask a further question with respect to international development. We have heard from prior witnesses that foreign service development is often seen as a secondary vocation. I have two questions in this regard. First, I’m hoping you can provide the committee with the attrition rates of workers who came over from the Canadian International Development Agency, or CIDA, when it was amalgamated with the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, or DFAIT, in 2013. You might not have it today, but perhaps you can share this in writing in the future.
My second question is this: Does the department feel supported in the developmental stream, and do you have the resources you need to pursue the development aspect of diplomacy that is so important for a wealthy, medium-sized country like Canada?
Christopher MacLennan, Deputy Minister of International Development, Global Affairs Canada: Thank you for the question. We can get back to you on the question of attrition. I think that’s a very specific one in terms of what has taken place over the past nine years.
The short answer to your question is that the amalgamation of the departments that took place nine years ago has been one that has enabled us to actually benefit across all streams to deliver on Canada’s international assistance priorities. This has meant that we can actually leverage the entire diplomatic network and the entire foreign service — which is now at the fingertips, quite honestly, of both the Minister of International Development and the Deputy Minister of International Development — to augment what had originally been the CIDA platform for delivering on development assistance.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. MacLennan. I’m sure this is a subject we’ll return to.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you to our witnesses. Ms. Morgan, you’ve referred to some of the steps you have taken to respond to the concept of surge capacity. Are there geopolitical areas where you’re particularly focused — outside, of course, of the current critical areas of Ukraine and Afghanistan — with respect to a long-term strategy? Have timelines been established, and do you see the possibilities of these processes coming into play in a fairly expedient manner?
Ms. Morgan: Thank you. That’s a really good question. If you look over the last few years, we’ve had to establish significant task forces to deal with COVID. At one point, I think we had about one in five of our employees at headquarters actually working on repatriating Canadians from around the world. I think this really shows the culture, the willingness of our management and our ability as an organization to redeploy and pivot as needed.
Right now, our focus is really on Ukraine in terms of task forces. We also continue to work closely with IRCC on Afghanistan.
What we really are thinking through as we look forward is to identify new priorities. I’ll give you one example, which is Minister Joly’s mandate commitment to develop an Indo-Pacific strategy; you probably saw the announcement today of an advisory committee to assist her in this. As we look forward to an Indo-Pacific strategy — which is a good example — we need to think long and hard about what diplomatic capacity we need to support that strategy, and what capacity do we need on the policy side to support that strategy? I think that needs to be part of all our thinking as we identify and get ready for new and emerging priorities.
Senator Ravalia: I’ll follow up with a slightly different subject.
As we modernize Canada’s diplomacy, do you have a sense of what digital technologies will help us to revitalize our Foreign Service? Do we envisage a public-private partnership? Will we reach out to companies and individuals that are already very established in the sphere?
Cindy Termorshuizen, Associate Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Global Affairs Canada: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Indeed, the question of digital capabilities is so important to us. We really moved ahead very quickly in this area as so many organizations did during the pandemic. We rapidly switched to a number of remote platforms, and that capability is one that will stand us in good stead as we move more into a hybrid type of workplace.
One of the things we are looking at is continuing to enhance our cybersecurity. As you know, Mr. Chair, this is an ongoing issue for both the public and private sectors. Our department has a very strong cybersecurity capability, and we work closely with the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security and other key government agencies in this area. However, the capabilities of our adversaries continue to grow, so we really need to continue to invest in this area.
The other thing I would say is we need to continue to invest in the basic platform from an IT perspective. The platform across the federal government is aging, and so there will need to be significant investments in that area. So we’re very focused on that basic platform and the cybersecurity aspects and then really ensuring that we have those tools to support a hybrid workforce and effective diplomacy through technology. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Termorshuizen.
Senator Richards: Thank you to the witnesses. Where are Foreign Affairs’ greatest challenges? Certainly, Afghanistan must be one, and I gather you’re working with the IRCC. But in which countries are we represented by a sister nation because we can’t get a foothold in and so we have to go through a foreign country? I’d like you to focus on Afghanistan and what we’re doing there, because I got a hundred letters over the last month from Afghan nationals who are in desperate straits.
My second question is this: I’ve been in quite a few embassies, many with local employees. I’m wondering how they are vetted. Is it within the security of the embassy itself or in some other way?
Thank you.
Ms. Morgan: I’ll answer the question on Afghanistan and turn the question on locally engaged staff over to Cindy Termorshuizen.
On Afghanistan, we’re working very closely with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, which is leading our efforts to continue to resettle Afghan refugees. That includes having our missions in the region support those efforts and assist in doing the diplomatic work that we need to work with other countries in the region — whether it’s the United Arab Emirates, Qatar or Pakistan — where individuals are coming out. We were then able to work with IRCC in order to resettle them. We were just hand in hand with the IRCC and the Canadian Armed Forces during the crisis in the summer.
I think it just shows the importance of being able to deploy our diplomatic network abroad to assist Canada’s interests, whatever they may be in a particular country or region and in a moment in time. It also shows the importance of having those broad and deep networks, because you never know, really, when you’re going to need them.
I’ll just give one more example. It’s a bit off topic, but at the beginning of COVID, the places where we really leaned on our missions the heaviest were Morocco, Ecuador and Peru, where we had Canadians, and their governments shut down their airspace. So at any time, any given mission can become mission critical. I’ll turn it over to Cindy on locally engaged staff.
Ms. Termorshuizen: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m so glad there’s a question on locally engaged staff. They’re a hugely important part of Canada’s ability to deliver on the mandates that we’ve been given. We have about 5,400 locally engaged staff. To give you a sense, that is a third of our total workforce and almost 75% of our workforce abroad. We simply couldn’t deliver on our mandate without our locally engaged staff. They bring an enormous amount of expertise and capability to our organization, and they are also there with us in some of the toughest parts of the world and face very difficult situations with our Canada-based staff.
To give two examples that I think have also been in the press, in Ukraine, our locally engaged staff were a critical part and remain a critical part of our team. When we had to evacuate our Canada-based staff, we continued to pay our locally engaged staff there and stayed in close touch with them, and I am pleased to say that they are coming back to work alongside our Canada-based staff. That is just one example of a place where our locally engaged staff have played a critical role in a very difficult time.
Senator Richards: If you could, in writing, answer the question that I had, which is how they’re vetted. I know they probably do a wonderful job and I’m not criticizing any embassy or embassy staff, but I would like to know how they’re vetted for employment, if you could answer that in writing, please.
Ms. Termorshuizen: Absolutely. I misunderstood the question.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We look forward to your response on that.
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much to all of our witnesses today. I know this is a good chunk of time for so many senior people to be with us. We definitely appreciate it.
I want to start by complimenting Global Affairs. I just returned from a visit to Kenya and had occasion to meet with David Da Silva and Nancy Bernard, two senior Global Affairs staff at the Canadian High Commission, and they were outstanding professionals. I want to compliment the department on the calibre of the people I just recently met with, and I did so with some Kenyan counterparts there. So thank you, and compliments to the department.
My question is about that pipeline of new recruits, which is always a concern. I know it’s something that you’re looking into now. Could you tell us, first of all, what the number of vacancies currently is within Global Affairs and how those vacancies are distributed? Then I have some follow-up questions.
Ms. Morgan: Thank you. On the issue of visits, yes, I would encourage the committee at the right moment to go and visit some of our diverse group of missions abroad. I think it would be really helpful for the study that you’re doing.
In terms of recruitment, we had a challenge for a period of time, between 2012 and 2018, bringing in new Foreign Service employees in particular; that rotational pool that’s really the backbone of our diplomatic service. We have launched two competitions for entry-level Foreign Service officers within the last two years. With the current one that we launched in 2021, we expect to bring in 200 more Foreign Service officers, and we brought in 80 with the first one. We’re getting back into a regular routine and our goal is to have competitions every two years so we can continue to replenish the Foreign Service. We would be glad to provide you information about vacancies in writing.
When we don’t have a sufficient number of Foreign Service officers, what we tend to do is fill those positions with term employees. It gives us an opportunity, for example, to bring in students and graduates and give them some experience at Global Affairs Canada as well. So we do have strategies to manage that. Our long-term strategy is to rebuild that pool and make sure that we get on a regular hiring rotation.
Senator Coyle: I’d like to also ask a question about another layer of professional staff, and that’s more experienced people. People often don’t stay in the same career path for their whole lives these days, and I believe that Global Affairs Canada would probably be another attractive place for people who have had careers elsewhere and then want to move into a part of their career with Global Affairs. Could somebody speak about how that works within Global Affairs and whether there is a strategy to attract more senior or mid-career professionals?
Ms. Morgan: There is considerable mobility into and out of Global Affairs in the non-rotational parts of the department, which does comprise a significant part of our workforce — trade, Trade Commissioner Service, international development, the corporate parts of the department. It’s quite straightforward for people to move in and out of Global Affairs to other departments. Personally, I encourage people from Global Affairs to go to other government departments and share the knowledge and expertise they have and allow us to bring talent in.
From the outside it is a bit more complicated because we have to run very large competitions. You will see that one of our recent competitions, for example, attracted over 6,000 applicants. The rotational pool tends to be more of a career pool where we develop people right from the beginning with language training and two years of onboarding when they come in. But I absolutely agree that — not just at Global Affairs but government-wide — we need to find ways to bring more people in mid-career from outside the government.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Greene: As we all know, the situation in Ukraine has the possibility to change the relationships between nations, and I believe it is doing that. To respond to that requires deep thinking. I would like to know how deep thinking takes place at Global Affairs. Is it the mandate of one of the four of you, do you all get together? Do you use outside experts and academics, et cetera? Because I think that the end of this war, if it should end soon, will be upon us and we will need a vast array of policies, programs and ideas circulating by people who can think about all of these issues to develop a policy for Canada.
Ms. Morgan: I had a little bit of trouble hearing that, but I think the question was about how we do the deep thinking that we need to do about the future implications of current issues, and in particular Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Thank you for that question.
We have a very strong central policy capacity, and we use that policy capacity to really look at emerging issues and long-term trends. In addition, in the areas of our department that are responsible for European security — for example, the future of NATO — that are responsible for assessing the knock-on impacts of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, such as on food security in the Middle East and northern Africa, we build that thinking into the work that we do on a daily basis. We try and carve out time and people who can really look at the longer-term implications of any given issue even as we’re responding to the crisis. We also consult regularly with outside experts. For example, I was in Montreal at Université de Montréal just a few weeks ago meeting with key academics and talking specifically about this issue, about where we go from here and what the longer-term implications are. So there are lots of ways to do that.
I think it’s a good question because in the middle of a crisis we always need to find time and make sure we dedicate the resources so that we’re prepared for the next phase and the impacts that are inevitably coming down the road.
Senator MacDonald: Ms. Morgan, my question is for you. You mentioned the right people at the right time in the right positions. Most ambassadors are career diplomats, but there are certain missions, such as the British High Commissioner, Ambassador to France and Ambassador to the U.S., where they’re people from a political background or with a political connection. What is the impact of non-career diplomats being appointed to these positions? Is it a positive impact, a negative impact or is there no impact? What is your assessment of this in terms of non-career diplomats being appointed as ambassadors?
Ms. Morgan: Thank you. Canada, like most other countries, often appoints non-career diplomats to key posts abroad and, in my view, that diversity of our diplomatic core is a real strength. What non-career diplomats often bring is very strong political connections, which provide credibility to the country they are engaging with. It enables them to be effective in terms of advancing Canada’s interests because of that credibility. Furthermore, the skills and background of those individuals are often complementary to the skills of the diplomatic staff that support them that are career diplomats.
When we have a non-career diplomat coming in to head up a mission, we’re very mindful of that in terms of providing extra onboarding and training and the support that they need to deal with the more organizational elements that individuals who have come up from within Global Affairs Canada would be able to provide to them.
Senator MacDonald: I have a lot of experience dealing with the embassy in Washington. We’ve had great ambassadors there. It really doesn’t matter what their political background is. Should we be doing more of this in the smaller embassies around the world and bringing that different perspective into these embassies? Do you have any response to that? Should we be doing more of it? We seem to be doing some of it but only with certain embassies.
Ms. Morgan: We have had non-career diplomats in smaller embassies as well. Our representative to the OECD is a good example. Some of our consuls general in the United States are often non-career diplomats. In the past, our ambassador to Ireland has often been a non-career diplomat. I think some of the smaller missions as well have been well served by those appointments.
As I said in my opening remarks, this is a team game. We need to have a diverse group of individuals with all of their talent, background and the experience that they can bring to bear to represent Canada abroad.
The Chair: Senator Boniface is having some technical difficulties. Since Senator MacDonald set a precedent last week, she has provided a question in the chat, and I will read it out.
This is for Deputy Minister Morgan: “Thank you for outlining the complexities of the issues that will inform your review. This review is to be completed by March. Will this review be flexible enough to adjust to any new complexities in the short term and long term?”
Ms. Morgan: That is certainly our goal. I think that one of the purposes of a review like this is really trying to anticipate what we need for the future. Where are we now? Where do we need to be in the next five years, let’s say? What changes do we need to make to position ourselves for that?
Part of that has to involve how you build flexibility into your operating systems, and part of it has to involve seeing now that you’re going to need to enhance and increase your capacity. Part of it also has to be about how we support the organization in a way that’s modern and flexible.
I think that flexibility is a key element that needs to cut across all of our work. As big organizations, we need to be adaptive in making sure that we have the systems, processes and people in place that allow us to do that, which is really important if we’re going continue to be effective.
The Chair: Thank you. I don’t know whether Senator Boniface has a follow-up. She will have to type very quickly.
As the chair, I want to ask for some precision here because in the media there have been two different dates circulating in terms of the termination of the internal review. Could you offer us some clarity, deputy minister?
Ms. Morgan: We’re aiming to have at least a preliminary report done by Christmas that gives us some early conclusions based on our lines of effort. However, we recognize that it could take a few months to fully finalize it after that and there will undoubtedly be more work to do.
I would say it’s a bit flexible at the moment, but we’re aiming to have some early results and then to have a more final version by March.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Gerba: I thank all our witnesses.
Like Senator Coyle, I congratulate the services of Canadian embassies abroad. I just had the same experience in Ghana, where we were received, accompanied, followed and supported by the High Commissioner of Canada, Kati Csaba. Those services are very appreciated.
My question is for Ms. Morgan, the Deputy Minister. Canada is the fourth largest non-African shareholder of the African Development Bank and holds one of the 20 permanent seats on its board of directors. Through that participation, Canada supports Africa’s emergence and affirmation. However, the Canadian diplomatic network on the continent has been considerably reduced over the years. Canada has only 20 missions in the 55 African countries left, which is less than Norway, whose population is nearly eight times smaller than Canada’s. Norway actually won a seat on the United Nations Security Council over Canada, thanks in part to the support of African countries.
Why does a large country like Canada have such a small diplomatic network in Africa, when it is one of the largest funders on the continent? How do you explain that, Ms. Morgan?
Ms. Morgan: Thank you very much for the question. Our relationship with Africa is clearly very important. We are working very closely with African countries on humanitarian, international development and security issues. That is a growing continent with a young population; its importance will increase in the future.
I think we have a very strong network in Africa. We must remember that, sometimes, when we are deciding where we must be represented, it is important to have a critical mass. The priority for me is to have missions that are well resourced, have a critical mass to have a real influence and are located in the most important places in the region.
That said, this is one of the questions we are asking ourselves. How do we decide where to have new missions and where to maybe close missions? Where should we strengthen the quality or quantity of our staff in missions?
I think that is a very good question. We don’t have all the answers right now.
[English]
Senator Omidvar: Thank you for entertaining my question, which is to Deputy Minister Morgan. I also want to stay on Africa. Much of my question has been asked by Senator Gerba, but I want to get a little more precision from you on your capacity in Africa and your assessment of whether that capacity is sufficient or needs to be enhanced in order to help us develop trade relations with Africa, outside, obviously, issues of access to immigration, international development, et cetera. Thank you.
Ms. Morgan: Thank you for the question. We have 21 missions in Africa. We recently committed to have an ambassador to the African Union, which will be really important for us to have someone who can spend their full time on what’s a really critical organization in terms of pan-African governance.
We certainly hear from our African interlocutors that they are looking for deeper trade relations with Canada. As I noted, as we look to the future of the continent, the growth and the young populations, one can only imagine that the opportunities there will grow.
Part of where we deploy our efforts is, in a sense, market driven. I’m happy to turn it over to David Morrison to talk about how we allocate our trade resources if there is interest in that, but it’s really a question of where the growth is coming from. Where are Canadian firms interested? Where are they actually investing? All of those factors have to play into a very complex equation of about where we grow and where we need to expand.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you very much.
David Morrison, Deputy Minister of International Trade, Global Affairs Canada: We do have good coverage on the trade side for the entire continent. It is also part of Minister Ng’s mandate letter to develop a trade strategy for the entire continent which takes into account the African Continental Free Trade Area initiative. So we are responding to that with our own strategy, which will be forthcoming. Thank you.
The Chair: With my privilege as chair, I have two very quick questions. One is on recruitment. Ms. Morgan, I heard you talk about the two recruitment exercises that are under way. I was recently at the University of Toronto and was told that many students who are interested in international affairs had applied. The response to them was that they would be included in a lottery-style selection if they qualified and that it would take some time. Many of them are looking for other jobs in the private sector or wherever.
What is the length of time involved and the procedure for the actual recruitment? If you could offer some comments on that, I would be grateful.
Ms. Morgan: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will turn this one over to Francis Trudel.
Francis Trudel, Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources, Global Affairs Canada: As the deputy minister explained earlier, our recruitment processes are attracting a lot of interest across the university system across Canada; 6,000 was the number that we had in our last campaign, which is actually under the average of our normal recruitment drives. We have to administer these processes. In order to do that, we partner with the Public Service Commission, which does the first round of tests for us. I think that’s the lottery question that you were commenting on. It came from these results of those 6,000 people being processed.
We take the candidates that meet the best recruitment requirements that we have in our organization. In order to assist our agenda on diversity, we actually pick from the successful candidates the people who meet the gaps that we’re trying to fill in our organization, including visible minorities, people with disabilites and those from Indigenous communities.
All this process is to get to an actual number, and the number we’re targeting for this current campaign is about 200. It will take about a year of processing to do that, to answer your question about timelines. As the deputy minister commented, we will do these processes on a regular basis, every two years. That is the plan, but we are always able to go back to this high number of qualified candidates, even on a yearly basis, if we need to hire even further.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I’m assuming there is a security clearance that’s involved, too, and that could take some time. Am I correct in assuming that?
Mr. Trudel: That is correct. Another part of the delay is the evaluations for official languages.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: What compensation do members of our diplomatic corps receive for working in a war zone?
[English]
Mr. Trudel: Thank you for the question.
[Translation]
You are right; our department employees who work in high-risk areas or war zones are compensated or have compensation elements or benefits above and beyond the salary of our employees posted abroad. That is called the Foreign Service Directives, a compensation system that is based on both security issues and issues of access to goods and services, including medical services available at locations where our employees are sent.
We also have a difficulty level system based on a scale of one to five that helps categorize them. That has a direct impact on the benefits employees receive. In war zones, which are the highest risk areas, we even go as far as to provide what we call a rest and respite system. That gives employees a chance to get out of war environments on a regular basis to have some compensatory time in a country that will be roughly representative of Canadian conditions, at a rate of about six weeks for every period spent in a war zone.
[English]
Senator M. Deacon: This is a quick question, but as I ask it, the very first part of my first question is about whether a review would be tabled in Parliament or otherwise be made public. I would love to see if I could get an answer to that.
However, this question is regarding a change in government. I do think about this. When there is a change in government, it’s clear from the testimony we’ve received thus far that the uncertainty which comes with changing governments and sometimes pivoting to contrary priorities poses difficulty for our Foreign Service, perhaps more than many other government departments.
While this is something that can’t be avoided in a democracy, it would be helpful for me to better understand what happens at the mission level when a new government comes in with a new set of priorities and a new strategy.
Ms. Morgan: Thank you for that question. First of all, we would, of course, be happy to return, once we have proceeded further in our own review and completed it, to discuss the findings with this committee. I think it would actually be very helpful for us to be able to present that to you at the right moment. I understand there’s some consideration with having the ministers come before the committee, as well.
On the issue of changes in government, our missions are part of the broader federal public service, and we are very well equipped for and used to changes in government. Governments set out their priorities through a variety of means, usually starting with the Speech from the Throne, and then mandate letters for ministers, and then underneath that, of course, there’s a whole layer of decision making that happens that is particular to any given department.
The question about missions is interesting because at headquarters one of the things that we strive to do is communicate often and intensely with our missions, and we have systems set up to do that. We have ADMs who are responsible for geographic regions and ADMs who are responsible for the multilateral missions, so as a new government comes in and establishes their priorities, we communicate it through the department. We use those communication tools — town halls and written and verbal communication — to get to our heads of mission. It’s a cascading thing throughout the entire system, but it’s something that we’re quite used to and very comfortable with. Our heads of mission are very attuned to the need to project Canadian interests, Canadian values and current government priorities abroad in all of the work that they do.
Senator M. Deacon: Is there anything we can do to look at improving this transition from your point of view?
Ms. Morgan: We can always improve how we communicate with our missions and how mindful and conscious we are of the need to ensure that our missions are well connected back to Canada and back to Canadian government priorities. It’s about frequency and it’s about using the new tools that we now have at our disposal. Frankly, with COVID and our ability now to communicate virtually is quite revolutionary for us in terms of our ability to effectively engage with our missions simultaneously and in a way where we can be really interactive with them.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: I will quickly go back to what Ms. Morgan said. I understand that decisions are made based on needs. I have one question. Mr. Morrison mentioned earlier the African Continental Free Trade Area. With the establishment of that free trade area, which opens up a market of 1.4 billion people with an estimated gross domestic product of nearly US$3 trillion, the demand will be very high. Will trade commissioner services be strengthened in Africa? As I have often travelled to those countries, especially Cameroon, I know that Cameroon’s trade commissioner services now cover four countries: Cameroon, Gabon, Chad, and the Central African Republic. Has a study been carried out to determine whether it is too much to ask highly competent senior commissioners who provide those services to cover so many countries for that growing demand?
The Chair: I think the question is for Mr. Morrison.
Mr. Morrison: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would say that the first step will be the study I talked about — the trade strategy for Africa. We are working on it right now. I think we will have a better idea of what we need to do in six months.
We could always have more resources, more trade commissioners.
[English]
Studies indicate that there is a gain of $26 for every dollar invested in the Trade Commissioner Service. There are lots of studies that indicate the return on investment in the Trade Commissioner Service, but it’s very expensive to have people overseas, and we will certainly be looking to the study to indicate the potential of the new free trade agreement for Africa, or the free trade arrangements for the entire continent, and over time we adjust our resources according to the opportunities.
Senator Gerba: Thank you.
Senator Richards: Thank you to the witnesses again. The embassies are lifesavers for a lot of Canadians. I know they were for my wife and me when we were kids in London years ago. But how do embassies these days protect Canadians in places like China? We don’t seem to have any influence there at all, and are living through a whole host of bullying and insults and, at times, more than subtle military threats, yet we still maintain an embassy there. I know this is more of a political question than a diplomatic one, but I wonder if you could address that, Ms. Morgan.
Ms. Morgan: I think the heart of this question is really about how we protect and serve Canadians abroad with our consular services, which I’m really glad you’re asking about, because it’s a key element of what Global Affairs does. I’m going to turn it over to Ms. Termorshuizen.
Ms. Termorshuizen: Thank you very much. One of the key things about our consular services is that we are very much in the first instance focused on prevention. You’re absolutely right, there are places around the world that can be dangerous for Canadian citizens, and one of the things we want to ensure is that Canadians understand the environment they’re going into and are prepared for that. We invest a lot of resources here at Global Affairs Canada in our Travel.gc.ca website, which provides travel advice on countries around the world. We regularly update it, we send out advisories and we also use our social media accounts when there are rapidly breaking events, whether it’s hurricanes, earthquakes or social unrest in places that may cause danger for Canadians. We’re trying to give them that information so that they can make good decisions. Prevention is really the very first step for us.
When individuals do find themselves in trouble abroad, our missions, in many parts of the world, have locally engaged and Canada-based consular experts that are on staff who can provide services. We also have here in Ottawa our Emergency Watch and Response Centre, so that if someone gets in trouble in the middle of the night they can call this number 24/7 and we have consular and emergency management staff on site to provide advice. We do have a lot of focus on consular services and we try to do our best to both help prevent and also support Canadians when they do get in trouble abroad. Thank you.
Senator Richards: Thank you. Just as a quick follow-up, is there any parlance at all with Russia, diplomatically?
Ms. Termorshuizen: Absolutely. There clearly are challenges with Russia. We currently have a travel advisory advising Canadians not to travel to Russia, given the many challenges there. We do continue to provide consular services from our embassy in Moscow.
The Chair: If I can interrupt for a moment, I think the question was about parlance or discussions with Russia.
Senator Richards: Yes. Do we have any ongoing, behind-the-scenes discussions with Russia that might influence them in any way possible? A quick answer will do.
Ms. Morgan: We continue to maintain our mission in Moscow. We think that having an ambassador in Moscow and a mission there is really important for us to be able to maintain lines of communication and for us to be able to understand more concretely what is happening in Russia.
Senator Richards: Thank you.
Senator MacDonald: According to the 2020 Public Service Employee Survey, only 30% of Global Affairs Canada employees who responded said that they strongly agreed that they would recommend their department “as a great place to work.” That’s a pretty damning indictment and reflection of how they see their workplace. Why is morale so poor in the department? Only 30% is pretty low morale. There has to be a reason for it. What do you see the reasons being?
Ms. Morgan: This is something that we take very seriously here at Global Affairs Canada. We pay close attention to the results of the PSES and how we compare to other departments. We have put in place many measures to engage employees to understand and react — respond, really — to the challenges that they raise, whether it’s our very active youth network, our active employment equity and diversity networks or the Employee Assistance Program that we provide. We make sure that we promote that to employees so that if they’re having difficulties, they know where to go. We’re looking at how to improve that system to make it a bit more obvious for employees where they need to turn if they need help.
It’s hard to have a definitive answer to this question. I do think that the challenges are different for different employees. It’s something that we continue to try and understand better. The response to that and what is underlying it really depends on where an employee is in their career. Are they in a hardship post? Is it a young employee who is trying to make their way into the department and figure out what the right pathways are? We need to tackle it on multiple fronts.
Senator MacDonald: I know it’s a difficult question to answer, but you didn’t really answer it. I’m just curious: What are the more obvious challenges? What are the ones you hear about the most? There must be some concerns that keep recurring.
Ms. Morgan: One of the challenges that I heard about a lot when I first became deputy minister here was the challenge of young employees who were looking for pathways to more secure employment within the department. As I noted before, that’s one of the reasons we’ve put so much emphasis on making our competitive rotational processes more regular. Obviously, it’s something that we hadn’t been doing well enough in the past. I’m hoping that that will help and at least provide young employees with the knowledge that there is a potential pathway for them. That was one thing that we heard a lot.
We do have a lot of employees who work in difficult situations around the world and in tough places. Those employees often have a spirit of adventure. They want to go to those places. That’s where their heart is, but it can be challenging. It’s a very competitive department. We attract a lot of really talented people into Global Affairs. Sometimes I think that atmosphere can be challenging for employees over time. Those are some of the challenges that we’re trying to work on, particularly in the rotational stream.
We have very low turnover. On the one hand, we do see challenges in the PSES results, but we are able to attract great people and we don’t tend to lose them at a very high rate.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I don’t have any other senators on the list for the second round, but that provides me with an opportunity to ask a question or two.
Ms. Morgan, you mentioned the volatile international environment. Of course, we’ve seen this, and we’re seeing it every day. Some would suggest that volatility is not going to go away any time soon, whether it’s increased conflict in different parts of the world or another pandemic. Having been involved in a few of these things in my previous life, I’m wondering whether, as your team goes through all of this — and are doing a marvellous job, I would add — you are establishing standard operating procedures and methods, or rosters of people that can be called upon quickly to step in. Are you looking at internal emergency staffing preparedness as these things hit Canada globally?
Ms. Morgan: Yes, we are. I’m going to turn this one over to Ms. Termorshuizen, because she was most recently our assistant deputy minister for consular affairs and has a really good understanding of those systems.
Ms. Termorshuizen: I would say a couple of things about surge capability.
As mentioned in one of my earlier responses, we have an Emergency Watch and Response Centre. It’s really the core of our capability to respond to emergencies. It has an extraordinary ability to surge. When we have large emergencies, we will have a call centre with hundreds of employees often answering calls from Canadians at the same time. We have a roster of individuals who are already trained and who can be called upon to staff that call centre from within the department when we need them. That system exists, and we always look to reinforce it, through training and development, to have a pool of people who can respond to those requirements.
We also have a team of individuals who are identified to help provide surge support abroad. These are individuals who have a day job, either here at headquarters or in missions around the world, but they’re tagged as part of these teams when there is a crisis. For example, during the Afghanistan process, we brought people into the Middle East, into Qatar and Kuwait. These people were on that roster. We could call them from their mission because they were on 24 hours to move, and they were able and trained in that role. Surge capacity is incredibly important in the department, and we have a number of mechanisms to do that.
Ms. Morgan: Ukraine is another example, where, early on in response to Russia’s invasion, we were able to identify from across the department people who had Russian language skills; people who had a Ukrainian background, experience and language skills; and people who had experience in the subject matter areas, such as the sanctions that we needed. We pulled together not only a first-rung team but also a second-rung team so that we had backup and we could grow that team as we needed it.
One of the challenges as we look forward is ensuring that we’ve got deep enough capacity in certain areas so that we’re able to draw on that as the importance of those areas increases, whether it’s geographic expertise, which is what people often think about when they think about our diplomatic capacity; subject matter expertise, where we need to have that kind of depth as well; or corporate expertise, where we need that kind of depth. Those are the things that we’re going to be looking at in our internal review: Where are the areas where we think we need more depth if we look at the challenges that are coming at us?
Senator Oh: Thank you, witnesses. I have a simple question: When I travel abroad, I visit all our embassies. Sometimes I meet a lot of young people at different embassies. They told me they are interns. They come to the embassy for a year to work on the program. How successful is that particular program, and is that still going on?
Ms. Termorshuizen: Senator Oh, we have a number of different ways of staffing at missions. Some of our missions have internship programs. These are very specific to the specific mission. We have them, I believe, in Washington; we’ve had them in Beijing, which you may have seen. These are opportunities for us to recruit individuals for short-term experiences. Sometimes these individuals end up being successful in Foreign Service competitions and become long-term employees. We have a number of them who have been successful in recent competitions.
We also have situations where we have a Foreign Service position abroad that we may not be able to fill with the right person who is currently in the Foreign Service. In those situations, we may send a person abroad who is not a Foreign Service officer but is an employee of the department and has the appropriate skill set. That person will go for a single assignment abroad because of their particular skill set and capabilities.
I’m not sure which of those you referred to, but I would say that in both cases — the interns and these employees who come for single assignments — we found these to be really important ways to augment our capacity abroad.
Senator Oh: I do talk to them in depth, and I think they’re very helpful. They show great interest in the job they’re doing. They told me that it was a good assignment to be appointed for a year or so in a foreign country and learn a lot. Thank you.
The Chair: I have one last point. This committee is continuing its study. It’s our hope that we will, in fact, be able to visit some of our missions abroad, to get to Ms. Morgan’s invitation for us to do so; we will do that, that’s the plan. However, I think we’ve also noticed that other countries and other governments are going through something similar — all of the demographic concerns with respect to their foreign services and how you place people abroad. You have people who will travel with families. You have safety concerns, due diligence requirements and all of that. We’ve seen that in France. Great changes are taking place in the French foreign service. Australia amalgamated its development function as has the United Kingdom.
As you continue your own internal review, are you looking at what other countries are doing who also have a large global presence the way we do? Do you have any comparator countries that you might be looking at?
Ms. Morgan: Absolutely. That’s so important for us. Global Affairs Canada’s counterpart departments in other countries are so unique within different governments that we really look often to our key allies and comparators as we’re thinking about where we need to be going. It’s a great source of wisdom for us.
Australia — as you mentioned, Mr. Chair — and Norway have both undertaken recent reviews, and so we’ll definitely be consulting with them. I was recently in the U.S. and in Germany, and we are arranging to send teams there to meet with them. You are probably aware of Antony Blinken’s speech six or eight months ago in which he outlined plans for the transformation of the State Department, which are very consistent with the areas we’re looking at. They looked at their people and they wanted to look at digital, cyber, IT and their platform. So we are going down to the U.S. to talk to them about their reform plan. This will be a critical part of what we do.
And I would note that as other countries have brought their international development functions into their foreign ministries, they’ve consulted very actively with us. In particular, we did a lot of work with the U.K. and offered them a lot of advice and expertise as they went through — and continue to go through — that integration process.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We’ve come to the end of this session, so on behalf of my colleagues, I’d like to thank our witnesses for appearing. I want to thank you as well — and, through you, your teams — for your dedication and great professionalism that makes Canada proud across the world.
We will also take up your invitation to come back and see us again, and we look forward to comparing notes on that. Thank you very much.
Colleagues, we’re going to move to our clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-8, and I just wanted at the outset to provide a few reminders as to the work as we go ahead.
If at any point a senator is unclear as to where we are in the process, please ask for clarification so we are all literally on the same page. In terms of procedural mechanics, senators should know that when more than one amendment is proposed to be moved in a clause, the amendments should be proposed in the order of the lines of that clause. Therefore, before we consider an amendment to a clause, I will verify whether any senators had intended to move an amendment earlier in that clause. If any senator did intend to move an earlier amendment, they will be given the opportunity to do so.
If a senator is opposed to an entire clause, I remind you that in committee, the proper process is not to move a motion to delete the entire clause but rather to vote against the clause as standing as part of the bill.
I would also remind senators that some amendments that are moved may have consequential effects on other parts of the bill. To that end, it would be helpful to this process if a senator moving an amendment identified to the committee other clauses in this bill where their amendment would have an effect or an impact. This will help to ensure members of the committee remain consistent in their decision making, and staff will endeavour to keep track of places where subsequent amendments need to be moved and will draw our attention to them.
As we proceed, if committee members have any questions or concerns about the process, they may, of course, raise a point of order. As chair, I will listen to arguments and render a ruling after sufficient discussion on the matter. Of course, any decision made by the chair can be appealed to the full committee by asking whether the ruling shall be sustained.
I would also like to note that, invisibly, we have officials of IRCC and CBSA available should there be a detailed question that your chair cannot answer. The chances of that are quite likely because I don’t have all of the details, but we have our experts on hand.
As chair, I will do my utmost to ensure that all senators who wish to speak can do so. I remind senators of our hard stop at 1:30, whether or not we have completed our business today, and I ask all senators to keep remarks brief and to the point. Finally, if there is any uncertainty as to the result of a voice vote or a show of hands, the most effective route is to request a roll call vote, which provides an unambiguous result. In the event of a tie, the motion in question is defeated. With that, we will proceed to clause-by-clause consideration.
Is it agreed, honourable senators, that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-8, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, to make consequential amendments to other Acts and to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Shall clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Shall clause 4 be adopted?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Adopted. Shall article 5 be adopted?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Adopted. Shall clause 6 be adopted?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Adopted. Shall clause 7 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Shall clause 8 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall clause 9 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Shall clause 10 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall clause 11 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Shall clause 12 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Shall article 13 be adopted?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Adopted. Shall article 14 be adopted?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Adopted. Shall 15 be adopted?
Senator Gold: Chair, I have an amendment to propose to add a new section 15(1). Is this the appropriate time to do so? I think it’s been circulated.
The Chair: Yes it is, Senator Gold. Please go ahead.
Senator Gold: Would you like me to read the amendment and briefly explain it?
The Chair: By all means.
Senator Gold: Thank you, chair. I move:
That Bill S-8 be amended by adding, after line 20 on page 5, the following:
15.1(1) subsections (2) to (4) apply if Bill C-21, introduced in the first session of the Forty-fourth Parliament and entitled An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), (in this section referred to as “the other Act”) receives Royal Assent.
(2) on the first day on which both section 52 of the other act and section 1 of this act are in force, paragraph 4(2)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is replaced by the following:
(c) the establishment of policies respecting the enforcement of this act and inadmissibility on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, sanctions, transborder criminality or organized criminal criminality; or
(3) on the first day on which both section 55 of the other act and section 9 of this act are in force, paragraph 55(3)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is replaced by the following:
(b) as reasonable grounds to suspect that the permanent resident or the foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, sanctions, serious criminality, criminality, transborder criminality or organized criminality.
(4) on the first day on which both section 56 of the other act and section 10 of this act are in force, paragraph 58(1)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is replaced by the following:
(c) the minister is taking necessary steps to inquire into a reasonable suspicion that they are inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, sanctions, serious criminality, criminality, transborder criminality or organized criminality.
Chair, if I may explain, that was a mouthful, but it’s actually quite simple and minor.
To be brief, this is a minor technical amendment that does not change the substance of Bill S-8 in any way at all. What it does is prevent a potential conflict with other legislation — Bill C-21 — that was introduced in the other place two weeks after Bill S-8 was introduced here in the Senate.
To provide you with greater context, as you know, Bill S-8 proposes changes to three provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, sections that are also affected by Bill C-21. These provisions are, first, the grounds of inadmissibility falling under the responsibility of the Minister of Public Safety — that’s paragraph 4(2)(c); second, the grounds on which an officer may detain certain persons at the border — that’s paragraph 55(3)(b); and third, the grounds on which the Immigration and Refugee Board may order continued detention — that’s paragraph 58(1)(c).
In all of these instances, as you know, Bill S-8 would add sanctions to the existing list of grounds for inadmissibility or detention. As for Bill C-21, it in turn would add transborder criminality to the grounds for inadmissibility or detention.
The technical problem that this amendment addresses is that, as they’re currently written, neither bill takes the other bill into account, meaning that whichever bill is adopted second would unintentionally undo the changes to those provisions made by the bill that was adopted first. Therefore, this coordinating amendment that I’m proposing states that if there comes a time when Bill S-8 and Bill C-21 are both in force, then both sanctions and transborder criminality will be included on those grounds that I’ve just described. I want to underline that this in no way presupposes the adoption of Bill C-21, amended or not amended. The amendment simply ensures that in the event that we do end up passing Bill C-21, the changes that we’re making today in Bill S-8 will be preserved.
Thank you, colleagues. I hope that explains it. I’m open to answer any questions to the best of my ability.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Gold, for the explanation with respect to the coordinating amendment.
Senator Richards: My only concern, and it might be a minor one, bleeds over into my concern about Bill S-7: What is “reasonable suspicion”? I have a question about that same language in Bill S-7, and I’m just wondering about it here.
Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. The standard of “reasonable suspicion” is a well-established criterion in law governing all kinds of legal powers. In no way does this amendment change what is already in Bill S-8 and that which you’ve dealt with, nor would it affect anything in any other bill. It simply provides, in the most narrow sense, that if and when both bills come into force, then the provisions that are before you in Bill S-8 will not be inadvertently erased. That’s all it does.
Senator Richards: I realize that, senator. I’m not saying that this isn’t a matter of a constant in law. I’m just saying the term still bothers me, and I suppose it always will, no matter how many bills we pass. Thank you.
Senator Gold: That’s a fair comment. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Richards.
The Chair: Do any other senators wish to comment or ask questions?
Senators, is it your pleasure to adopt the motion in amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Thank you.
Senator Gold: Thank you, chair.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Gold.
Shall clause 16 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 17 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 18 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 19 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Chair: Shall clause 20 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 21 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 22 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[English]
The Chair: Shall the bill, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it agreed that I report the bill, as amended, to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Is it agreed that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make necessary technical, grammatical or other required non-substantive changes as a result of the amendments adopted by the committee, including updating cross references and renumbering of provisions?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)