44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 12, 2022 11:00AM
- Dec/12/22 12:27:34 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-8
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy about this bill. Clearly, we need to pass it as soon as possible.
However, I do want assurances from the minister about something. Anyone deemed inadmissible on grounds of sanctions may request a review of the reasons for their removal. Generally, the people who are here, who belong to oligarchic families, who are subject to sanctions, are people with money. These are people who can activate every possible recourse and draw things out as long as possible. Has that been addressed?
I checked the legislative summary, but it was not clear. Are there concrete measures to prevent these people from using the money they stole from their people to draw out the process and avoid removal?
122 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/12/22 1:00:00 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-8
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill S‑8.
The bill before us is basically very simple. It adds a ground for refusing entry into the country if one is the target of economic or other sanctions imposed by Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I wish to share my time with my very congenial colleague from Shefford. Fortunately, her arrival jogged my memory. I believe that I also need the unanimous consent of the House to do that.
90 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/12/22 1:00:54 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-8
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues. This does not happen often, but I will say it: For once, we all agree.
It is like the bill we are debating now, Bill S‑8. Quite simply, we want consistency. The idea is to impose measures against individuals or states, but especially individuals. Top of mind for us all right now are Russian oligarchs, but Iranian groups or groups from other nations could be targeted by sanctions. They would be denied entry or could be removed from the country on those grounds.
The bill will impact a number of laws. I have read the legislative summary, and it is quite complex. There is the Special Economic Measures Act, the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, or Sergei Magnitsky law, and the United Nations Act. The aim is to amend a pile of legislation to ensure that Canada's system is consistent when it comes to imposing sanctions on foreign offenders. There is no point in mincing words: They are criminals, people who have made populations suffer or simply, which is no better, usurped their country's, their nation's, economic wealth and who come to a country like Canada to lead a nice, quiet life.
There have been too many cases in history of war criminals and people who committed horrible crimes and were finally discovered in a southern country at the age of 89. For 40 years, they had relaxed by the pool or at the beach, with their drinks in hand while the people they made suffer never recovered. There were those who died, the children who were injured or killed, and the women who were raped. In the face of all these horrors, we must take a consistent approach and bring them to justice.
However, this does raise questions. My Conservative colleague who spoke just before me raised a very pertinent question. He wondered why this arrived in the House on December 12. I do not know if anyone will vote against it. We always have that right, but I do not believe it will happen. I think that the bill will pass rather unanimously. I think we can pass it quickly and move on to something else.
How did it take two months for the bill to be introduced in the House? During that time, people have been in Canada getting a free ride. That is the issue. These are people who are targeted by sanctions who are taking advantage of the quality of life, health services and so on that Quebec and Canada have to offer, and they are getting away with it. I have a hard time with that.
When we talk about the Magnitsky law, we talk about people who were tortured and mistreated. I am thinking about Evgenia Kara-Murza, whom I had the great privilege of meeting at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights a few months ago. She holds her head high, courageously, and talks about her husband as much as she can. Her husband is currently imprisoned in Russia by people who have already poisoned him twice. I invite members to stop for 30 seconds and try to imagine being in that situation. She is touring western countries, trying to drum up international pressure and have people talk about her husband as much as possible, hoping to save his life.
How can we allow people who poison dissidents, who imprison them without cause and who create hundreds of political prisoners to come to Canada or Quebec to live a nice, quiet life? We cannot do that. That is why the House is unanimous.
Inadmissibility on the grounds of sanctions will be added to the grounds of security, human rights violations, criminality, organized criminal activity, health grounds, financial grounds, misrepresentation, non-compliance with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and family inadmissibility. The grounds for inadmissibility in the bill also apply to individuals who are alleged to be members of non-state organizations, such as terrorist groups.
Incidentally, there are ways to identify terrorist groups. Yes, there are groups that should be on the list and are not yet, but it is in the works. Still, it is possible to blacklist terrorist groups, implement specific sanctions for those people and take away certain rights. If it can be done in that context, why is it not possible to create a list of criminal organizations as a means to control illegal firearms? I do not understand that.
I hope nobody catches any of the flu viruses, which are pretty bad. That is why I have been absent a few times in recent weeks, but I have been keeping an eye on what is going on in the House from afar. I am very proud of my Bloc Québécois colleagues, who very capably dealt with the firearms management crisis the government caused and who demanded additional meetings with experts. We are fortunate to have a group of hard-working, professional people here. Those people are, of course, the Bloc Québécois members.
I was watching all of that from afar, and I found it very sad. I think it is a good thing when members of terrorist organizations are banned from entering the country. We do not have to do these people any favours. However, why are we doing favours for known gang members who party on the weekends wearing their colours and vests? I do not understand that.
This is not about democracy. It is about weapons trafficking. My colleague from Rivière-du-Nord, who is a member of the justice committee, introduced a brilliant bill on criminal organizations. I invite the government members to use it to draft a bill along the lines of the one we are currently examining. We do not have to give a chance to criminals, abusers and those who make others suffer.
This bill is a no-brainer. The Bloc Québécois thinks that Canada and Quebec should be a safe haven for people fleeing war, but not for those who cause wars and make people in their home country suffer. It should also not be a safe haven for thieves, con artists, criminals or profiteers.
Therefore, I invite everyone to quickly vote in favour of this bill. Before I conclude my remarks, I just want to mention a concern that we should be vigilant about as we move forward. Earlier, my NDP colleague made a good point about parliamentary oversight for the bill's next steps, and I believe that is very pertinent. Nevertheless, I want to raise another concern.
The oligarchs living here have money. They can pay for lawyers and take legal action. One of my concerns is that these people could launch lawsuit after lawsuit, claiming that the deportation is not justified. They would get to remain here for several more years enjoying themselves, while the people who suffered at their hands are dead or in prison in their country of origin. If any of my colleagues can respond to that, I thank them in advance.
1191 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/12/22 1:10:45 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-8
Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North and I agree on something for once. It is clear that we are getting close to the holiday season. I am happy to agree with him.
I agree with him wholeheartedly. That is why this bill is a no-brainer, why it is obvious and why I think there is unanimity in the House. He is right to point that out.
However, we wondered why it took so long to get to the House. Because of the inner workings of government, my colleague may have some answers that we are not privy to. Many of us do not understand why it took so long.
Of course, we need to move quickly to pass this bill, because war criminals and people who have made people suffer should not be allowed to take it easy in Quebec and Canada while the citizens of their home countries are still suffering. We have a moral duty to ensure consistency with all the other sanctions we have imposed.
170 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/12/22 1:12:53 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-8
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague very much for his question, which was well articulated in French.
Yes, I quite agree, unfortunately, and I think that is all too common.
However, the bill before us today is truly necessary and urgent. We will therefore support it in the good faith that we always show here in the House, by making constructive proposals to improve things.
My colleague is right to point out the government's typical Liberal inconsistency, given that it took so long to begin working on this bill. I digressed earlier in my speech to talk about gun control and to point out that the government amateurishly started proposing amendments after the committee had finished studying the bill. That is unacceptable. Anyone looking at this from the outside would wonder how it is possible. This is just one more question to add to the pile of questions about the government's way of doing things. Let us hope that voters remember this.
164 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/12/22 1:14:34 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-8
Mr. Speaker, I want to return the compliment to my colleague regarding the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Once again, he has contributed a very relevant comment. The possibility of adding parliamentary oversight is indeed something that the committee should study. It will also be important to see how this legislation is enforced over time.
My colleague raised some important questions. I also raised a very relevant question earlier regarding concerns that wealthy people might resort to legal action in order to stay here. Those shortcomings will have to be addressed in committee.
95 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
