Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-8, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or IRPA.

When I first spoke to this bill at second reading, I highlighted the very objectives that the government has declared that it wishes to achieve with this bill. First, the government has said that it wishes to reorganize existing inadmissibility provisions related 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, the bill expands the scope of inadmissibility based on sanctions to include all orders and regulations made under section 4 of the Special Economic Measures Act. Finally, the bill amends the regulations to provide that the Minister of Public Safety 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.

These measures appear in some respects to be quite broad. They are said to close a gap in the law, in this case, primarily to ensure that Russians who are supporters of the current regime are inadmissible to Canada. Obviously, we all want to ensure that.

However, as I noted in my remarks at second reading, sometimes our supposed strong measures may be less strong and less necessary than they actually are being made to appear. Some of the witness testimony we heard on this bill at committee confirms this.

When Dr. Andrea Charron, director of the Centre for Defence and Security Studies at the University of Manitoba, appeared before our committee, she said this bill “. . . repeats a pattern whereby Canada tinkers on the margins of legislation without addressing core policy and process issues.”

This critique of government bills is becoming all too commonplace of late. Many of the bills that the government is introducing are increasingly reactive measures, usually quick responses to external events. They are hasty measures designed to be symbolic, and it shows.

When Professor Charron spoke about Bill S-8 in committee, she lamented that the government often seems to introduce a legislative solution to a problem when that problem is really one of process and policy.

We have a government that tries to look good while avoiding consultations, as well as the more comprehensive and difficult policy work. In relation to Bill S-8, the government has said that the bill is necessary to avoid a gap in the law where a sanctioned individual might otherwise be admissible to Canada despite being sanctioned. But, as Professor Charron asked, was there a case of a foreign national under sanctions who was inadmissible but gained access to Canada? She noted that this does not seem to have ever occurred.

Indeed, when Richard St Marseille, Director General of Immigration and External Review Policy at the Canada Border Services Agency, appeared before our committee, he informed us that no sanctioned individual appears to have entered Canada in the past five years. There have been refusals abroad, evidently; 5 under the Special Economic Measures Act and 10 under the Magnitsky Law. But even those refusals are out of 1,858 individuals sanctioned under the Special Economic Measures Act and roughly 2,200 individuals listed under various sanction grounds.

None of these individuals appear to have entered Canada, and evidently fewer than 1% ever even attempted to apply abroad to do so. Dr. Charron argued that the main shortcoming in Canada’s approach relates not to legislative gaps around the sanctioning regime but due to the fact “. . . that Canada is not always clear about the reasons for sanctioning or the conditions to be met for their lifting.” In other words, Dr. Charron argues that the main problems are a lack of policy clarity and policy inconsistency.

I cannot help but think about Dr. Charron’s words this past weekend when we learned that a senior official from Global Affairs Canada attended national day celebrations at the Russian embassy. The government claims this was a mistake, but, honestly, how would such a mistake occur?

If an error such as that is possible in the current international climate, it is scarcely surprising that there may be a lack of policy clarity and policy consistency when it comes to the effective coordination of our sanctions policy, or indeed, when it relates to the effective coordination and implementation of any dimension of our international policy.

Unfortunately, Bill S-8 has the feel of an initiative that is designed to give the appearance of something being done rather than actually doing very much at all. That said, it could be that some of the measures incorporated in Bill S-8 may, in fact, be useful. Perhaps there is a need, at least a theoretical need, to close legal gaps between our sanctions regime and inadmissibility provisions in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. But I must say that I’m not supremely confident given the lack of clarity that the government has provided on the need for this bill.

Mr. Mario Bellissimo also appeared before our committee and warned that, in his view, Bill S-8 both expands and contracts inadmissibility provisions. He argues that the bill actually incorporates considerable ambiguity, and some of that ambiguity may simply be due to a lack of planning and thought.

Mr. Bellissimo argued that this ambiguity may create new unattended issues, including ambiguity as to whether foreign nationals may be treated as violators of human rights, regardless of whether or not the sanctioned person has been involved in personal wrongdoing themselves. Regrettably, the testimony by Mr. Bellissimo also speaks to a likely lack of policy attention being paid to policy issues that surround the crafting of such legislation.

All this leads me to conclude the bill we have before us today is largely a reactive measure. However, I can support it for the minor issues it purports to address. I do, however, wish that we had a government that was a little more thoughtfully proactive, a government that actually consulted and listened to these individuals, such as the informed witnesses who appeared before our committee. If we had such a government, we might actually begin to see more thoughtful and comprehensive policy approaches being adopted.

Canadians should be served better in this regard. We would have fewer bills that soak up legislative time but actually end up achieving very little. However, in spite of these legitimate concerns, what little this bill contributes is hopefully better than doing nothing at all, and I encourage honourable senators to support this bill. Thank you.