Hon. Tony Loffreda: Honourable senators, my question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

Senator Gold, the federal government’s silence on Bill 96 in Quebec is deafening. The business community in Quebec strongly believes in protecting the French language and ensuring its vitality, but they are concerned. They feel the bill goes way too far.

What will the federal government do about Bill 96? When will they start defending the rights of one of the largest linguistic minorities in Canada?

Senator Martin: The NDP-Liberal government says it expects to provide an update on how this funding will be allocated sometime over the summer.

Leader, does your government have a timeline to begin construction on these new shelters and transition housing? Does the Trudeau government commit to having any of these shelters up and running, and serving communities, this year?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. I’m not familiar with the applications for funding nor the circumstances around the provision of funding. This government has done more in the interests of Indigenous women, men, children, families and communities than any other government in Canadian history.

I’ll certainly make inquiries about that, but I would add — because I’m in the mood to add a commentary, if I may — that it’s passing strange that this government can, literally on the same day, be criticized for shovelling money out the door much too fast and also for not taking the time when it announces funding requirements to make sure the funds are properly allocated to organizations that are properly prepared and organized to receive it. But I digress.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, is leave granted?

Hon. Michael L. MacDonald: 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.

(1650)

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.

Senator Gold: I was not aware of that situation. There is no excuse for that, although I do apologize to those who waited at that location. I will try to find out more and get back to you with an explanation as soon as I know more.

[English]

Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer: Will the honourable senator take a question?

Senator Dean: Yes.

Senator Jaffer: Senator Dean, thank you very much for your work on the committee and for a very comprehensive report.

I may have my figure wrong, but besides the minister and officials, I think you had 12 independent witnesses. Would you agree with me that not one witness talked about the “reasonable general concern” test being a good idea, and that they all suggested that it should instead be “reasonable right to suspect?” Would you agree with me on that?

Senator Dean: Thank you, Senator Jaffer. Arguably, with the exception of the child protective services, that would be the case, yes. All of the others were clearly in favour of a higher threshold.

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 5-5(j), I move:

That, when the Senate next adjourns after the adoption of this motion, it do stand adjourned until Monday, June 20, 2022, at 6 p.m.; and

That rule 3-3(1) be suspended on that day.

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

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Senator Dalphond: Thank you, Senator Ataullahjan, for this question.

I’m not the expert on the issue, but there is one in this chamber. It’s Senator Jaffer. She made an important declaration at the committee study when she referred to exactly that type of experience and why she is always singled out in the line for a “random” check and sent to the second line. When she shows her green passport, they apologize and say, “Oh, sorry. It’s a mistake. We should not have called you for a second inspection.”

No doubt the system is not perfect. The current system is, according to some witnesses and the personal experience of Senator Jaffer, certainly deficient, because it seems to target some people more than others, especially after 9/11. Regarding the threshold that is being proposed, the evidence shown before the committee has illustrated that it is designed to codify the current practices of the customs officers.

Senator Dagenais asked an important question. He asked how many more employees they will need to teach these new criteria, because it’s a new test. Therefore, it will have to be explained carefully since it’s not a test that has been applied so far. It’s not the reasonable test that has been understood and developed by the courts. It will take time to flesh out.

How many more officers will you need? How many more training sessions? How many hours will you give to the officers to understand that new concept? The response from the border agency representative was, “No problem. We already have the training in place. We don’t need more people. That’s already what we do.”

What they are saying is that what they intend to do is to have this new threshold be equivalent to the current practice. But the current practice is in the guidelines; it’s not in the law. They say now that it’s in the law, it’s valid. I fear that, in practice, what is going to happen at customs won’t change with this new test. The old practices will continue under a new hat.

It’s important to me that we better define and flesh out the concept of reasonable suspicion or reasonable grounds to suspect rather than have a new test. This is the concept that has been recognized elsewhere in the act, so let’s be consistent. Either they change the whole act, or they change it only for computers, which is very unconvincing to me.

Senator Dalphond: I was expecting to be brief, but I appreciate the questions. Regarding reasonable suspicion, the word “reasonable” has been defined by the courts as being objective. So it means the agent has enough indicia to reasonably suspect that something’s happening.

(1640)

And it’s interesting because when the customs agency representative spoke to it, he suggested an example. He referred to someone who is coming back from a country where it’s well known that sex with children can occur. The person has been away for a long period. The person is having difficulty answering the questions, seems to be nervous and is sweating. He decides to send him to the second line.

Many of us felt there were reasonable grounds to do it. If this is the type of person they would like to target, the “reasonable suspicion” test will be the test to apply. I’m not so sure that it’s going to become ineffective.

We have reference to Ontario and Alberta saying that the numbers have been going down since the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Alberta. It was not renewed and, therefore, since April, they have applied “reasonable suspicion” for all travellers coming to Ontario or to Alberta. They say the numbers went down drastically. Well, yes, numbers went down drastically, but who says why? Is that because they are more careful? Maybe it’s a good thing. Is it because they don’t want to enforce it just to come up with the numbers, so they can say, “You see where we are? It’s a different test, and we don’t do as many checks as we used to do.”

All of that needs more explanation. I think we were a bit shortchanged when we asked questions about the rate of success and about the more limited numbers of people who are checked. What kinds of materials are found? What is illegal? We were not provided much information about that. I’m not saying there won’t be any kind of operational impact on the way they do things. For sure, if we have “reasonable suspicion,” it will change things compared to what they do now, because they intend to continue to do what they do now.

Senator Lankin: This might be more difficult for you to answer, and maybe it would be fair to wait until the sponsor of the bill speaks, but do we have any indication whether the government will view these amendments positively?

Senator Dean: I will speculate here just by reading the room. With respect to clarifying and strengthening a requirement to ensure that a digital device is disconnected from the network, the officials told us that would be covered in some regulations and that it is, indeed, the current practice.

I didn’t hear concerns about that being toughened up through an amendment, I will say. Similarly, officials told us that they did have some pre-existing provisions in terms of solicitor-client privilege, but, again, I wasn’t hearing concerns about those being replicated for certainty. There clearly was a difference of views with respect to the legal threshold, though.

[Translation]

Senator Gold: The actions have started, and they will continue.

As for what sentences courts hand out, with or without minimum sentences, the government has confidence in the abilities of the courts to follow their constitutional requirement to make sure that punishments are proportionate to the nature of the crime and the circumstances under which the crime has been committed.

I might add that the measures to deal with a cross-border transportation of arms range from illegal smuggling operations of great magnitude to a collector who inadvertently fails to fill out the paperwork after returning from a gun show across the border.

All circumstances should be taken into account by judges in the exercise of their judicial discretion. That’s the intent and purpose of Bill C-5.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

(At 5 p.m., the Senate was continued until Monday, June 20, 2022, at 6 p.m.)

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Robert Plamondon and Hélène F. Fortin, external members of the Standing Committee on Audit and Oversight. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Klyne.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

Senator Ataullahjan: Senator Dalphond, reasonable suspicion— what does that mean? Would that be different for every agent? Who decides?

Hon. René Cormier: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

Afghanistan was already a dangerous place for LGBTQ2+ people well before the Taliban took back control of the country. Since August 15, 2021, the situation has gotten dramatically worse. According to a Human Rights Watch report, the Taliban have committed multiple acts of gratuitous, unscrupulous violence against LGBTQ2+ people since returning to power.

In August 2021, Canada confirmed that it would extend its program to resettle 20,000 Afghans and that a special program would be set up for vulnerable Afghans, including LGBTQ2+ people.

Senator Gold, what is the Canadian government doing right now to bring in LGBTQ2+ refugees from Afghanistan? Rainbow Railroad, an organization that helps LGBTQ2+ people from Afghanistan, says that 300 of them, who are at high risk of persecution, are waiting for emergency evacuation. What is the Canadian government doing to help them?